Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 23
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
A consensus has formed and page creator requests that article be moved to a draft in his userspace. Because of the potential precedent of having an article about a proposal in such an early stage of planning linger in mainspace - and because there is a consensus - I am requesting that an editor close it swiftly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- The consensus is not obvious to me. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by DGG. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Vajiralongkorn#October 13 or December 1, 2016 (Initiated 2905 days ago on 19 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, DarjeelingTea (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Access locks: Visual Design RFC (Initiated 2956 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} Preferences were in favor of a Green-Blue-Red, open-dashed-closed shackle, dotted-half full-full lock image (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, DarjeelingTea (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2906 days ago on 18 December 2016) Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC. Best Polyamorph (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- done Dan Koehl (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry but it was not done. I asked for the consensus to be assessed. So please could an uninvolved editor close this properly. Many thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} non-involved editor closing as no consensus to overturn previous discussions (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Needs closure from uninvolved editor. (Initiated 2889 days ago on 4 January 2017). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC (Initiated 2956 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as only partial consensus on some sub-sections, and no clear consensus on overall behavior. Please see close message for further details. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 21#RfC: Should predecessors and successors be included in officeholders' infoboxes? (Initiated 2915 days ago on 9 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Discussion closed by DarjeelingTea on 6 February. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion may need evaluation. --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} (Initiated 2926 days ago on 28 November 2016) --Cerebellum (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Cerebellum (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would some kind soul gently assess consensus and answer the question asked? (Initiated 2901 days ago on 23 December 2016) — JFG talk 20:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Inside (video game)#RfC about the Theories header in the Plot section (Initiated 2895 days ago on 29 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of fake news websites/Archive 2#Request for Comment - Inclusion of Infowars in this list (Initiated 2907 days ago on 17 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 14#RfC about addition of Ambassador Dermer's criticism of SPLC's list (Initiated 2902 days ago on 22 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Needs closure from uninvolved editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Experienced and uninvolved close requested. Thanks. (Initiated 2885 days ago on 8 January 2017) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, DarjeelingTea (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286#RFC Closure review Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey (Initiated 2891 days ago on 2 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Tazerdadog (talk · contribs), thank you! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 29#Template:Scratch Perverts, which has been relisted 3 times, and has been open for more than one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the CfD, Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eurodac#Request for comments: Mentioning of the murder case (Initiated 2886 days ago on 7 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Chicago torture incident#RfC on WP:BLPCRIME (Initiated 2883 days ago on 10 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
While there is consensus in the ongoing discussions, those move reviews need uninvolved admin to review the comments. George Ho (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer is needed to evaluate the consensus at Talk:2016–2017 Gambian constitutional crisis#Merge proposal. George Ho (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
There is some disagreement over the way forward, and as I have been involved it would help to have an uninvolved editor or admin assess consensus and agree closure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John Furlong (sports administrator)#RfC about the inclusion of an "opening day crisis" section (Initiated 2891 days ago on 2 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kfar Ahim#RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian? (Initiated 2882 days ago on 11 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor asses the consensus opinion on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 14#RfC about addition of Ambassador Dermer's criticism of SPLC's list (Initiated 2902 days ago on 22 December 2016). It initially started out with voting and then escalated to a lot of people going back and forth and it is a little difficult to gage what the full consensus opinion. TAG (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 32#RFC: "resting place" parameter (Initiated 2866 days ago on 27 January 2017) appears to have stalled, with no comments since February 9. An uninvolved experienced editor or admin is requested to evaluate consensus, since a simple numerical count shows a close vote (13 to remove, 10 to keep, 3 to rename) and it's a contentious subject area that's seen some heated discussion. clpo13(talk) 16:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables (Initiated 2908 days ago on 16 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar#Request for Comment - Article Rewrite (Initiated 2909 days ago on 15 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bipartisan Report#December 2016 Request for Comment (Initiated 2913 days ago on 11 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants#RfC about the draft SNG (Initiated 2881 days ago on 12 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016#Request for Comment: Should Kurt Evans be listed as "Failed to Qualify"? (Initiated 2921 days ago on 3 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Three-editor non-involved editor verbose NAC. See talk page for reasoning. @Tazerdadog and Cunard: (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Explanation of Request for Comment on WP:WEIGHT of Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in multiple articles and templates (Initiated 2912 days ago on 12 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} --Cerebellum (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Cerebellum (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Is an uninvolved administrator willing to close this discussion? The discussion has become extremely lengthy already, in just a single week, and will only get lengthier when not closed, while afaics no new arguments are being added. I can't close it myself because I have contributed to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Black Kite on 13 February. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Disruptive Editor on Ethiopia related pages
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Disruptive Editor on Ethiopia related pages (Initiated 2880 days ago on 13 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Euryalus. Thank you for closing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Not notifying users about their pages being deleted (Initiated 2864 days ago on 29 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Kim Dent-Brown. Thank you for closing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This RfC expired on the 16th. An official close could help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 23#"Official" accounts representing individuals as opposed to groups (Initiated 2920 days ago on 4 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Consensus against preventative automatic blocking of these usernames. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer is needed to evaluate the consensus at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment (Initiated 2875 days ago on 18 January 2017). --George Ho (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New York#RFC: Should the lead feature information about New York City over information about New York State (Initiated 2910 days ago on 14 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} closed as consensus in favor of reducing emphasis on NYC. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger#RfC about the relevance of several aspects mentioned in the article about this crime (Initiated 2911 days ago on 13 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus for inclusion of proposed points. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy? (Initiated 2906 days ago on 18 December 2016)? Listing after a request on my talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} closed with consensus that "murder" is not necessarily a violation of NPOV (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus? (Initiated 2880 days ago on 13 January 2017) --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Discussion now archived at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Grace VanderWaal. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} closed with partial consensus (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy? (Initiated 2906 days ago on 18 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Eggishorn, as this was also requested two sections above. Pppery 19:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Radha Madhav Dham#RFC: Should an invocation at a county court be mentioned in the article? (Initiated 2907 days ago on 17 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
{{done}} Due to extremely limited participation, closed as no consensus. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion (Initiated 2861 days ago on 1 February 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Saudi Arabia#RFC: Birthplace of Islam and Arabs (Initiated 2896 days ago on 28 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with clear consensus against original text, and rough consensus for Zero's suggested replacement text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Andy Murray#Request for Comment British tennis player or Scottish tennis player (Initiated 2910 days ago on 14 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is anyone going to act on this request?Tvx1 22:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Closed as Option 2. - MrX 12:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Carrie Fisher/Archive 2#Infobox image RfC (Initiated 2897 days ago on 27 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Discussion is stale and archived. Defaults to no consensus for proposed edit. No need for formal closure.- MrX 12:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Albert Cashier#RFC: Gender (Initiated 2896 days ago on 28 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
This (Initiated 2885 days ago on 8 January 2017) needs closure from uninvolved editor. --George Ho (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- There is an existing discussion on this at WP:AN#Requesting three uninvolved admins to close RfC John from Idegon (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by the team of closers. --George Ho (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion (Initiated 2873 days ago on 20 January 2017) has been inactive for 12 days. - MrX 11:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- The RfC: Should Breitbart News also be described as "right-wing" in the lead? is broken, so I added "Talk:Breitbart News" to fixed the link. George Ho (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - the Nos have it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor kindly assess the consensus about inclusion of the Internet cult of Kekt phenomenon? (Initiated 2893 days ago on 31 December 2016) Thanks in advance for your assistance! — JFG talk 21:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, DarjeelingTea (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 63#RfC on the use of two film lists as sources (Initiated 2902 days ago on 22 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with consensus to not use the lists as sources of critical opinion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion on splitting List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine - initiated in 2014 with last comments added in early 2016. In my opinion there is a consensus to split, but since i initiated the discussion - i would like an external objective closure of the RfC.GreyShark (dibra) 06:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights#RfC about adding "pro-opposition" or "anti-Assad" to first sentence in the lead (Initiated 2904 days ago on 20 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Christmas/Archive 8#RFC - Date formats (Initiated 2896 days ago on 27 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. The closest thing to a consensus here is to stop pointlessly re-writing dates. Groan. Alsee (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The RfC (Initiated 2890 days ago on 3 January 2017) was ended by Legobot after the normal thirty days: consensus on the primary issue had been achieved well before that; but there is still disagreement upon the scope of the RfC - does the outcome apply only to the Star Trek: Discovery article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just a note that this discussion has been moved to this section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}, with further discussion moved to Manual_of_Style/Television seeking elevation into MOS. Alsee (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of highest-grossing films#RfC: How many entries should the main table have? (Initiated 2878 days ago on 15 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of original programs distributed by Netflix#RfC on section breaks for this article (Initiated 2870 days ago on 23 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election, 2000#Contradiction about Florida recount in the lead (Initiated 2872 days ago on 21 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Forever (website)#Proposed merge with Glen Meakem (Initiated 2866 days ago on 27 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the merge discussion, DarjeelingTea (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Counter-proposal: Treating these like PRODs
Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus of this RfC? (Initiated 2927 days ago on 27 November 2016) Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's a big one, which looks like consensus to me but I'm WP:INVOLVED. Would some kind soul go through the closing motions? (Initiated 2936 days ago on 18 November 2016) — JFG talk 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Consensus is for treating this type of AfD discussion like a PROD. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February 15#Lilah Parsons (Initiated 2847 days ago on 15 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to have been {{done}}. Pppery 01:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn (Initiated 2856 days ago on 6 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Noting that the subthread regarding sanctions proposed against Petergstrom has been open for over a week now. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} and archived. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#RFC on placement of Crown Heights Riots (Initiated 2902 days ago on 22 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? (Initiated 2885 days ago on 7 January 2017) Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as rough consensus for considering this book a reliable source as it relates to the article subject. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvoled and experienced editor kindly assess the consensus here. (Initiated 2885 days ago on 8 January 2017) Apologies in advance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Would an uninvolved and experienced editor assess the consensus ? Thanks, --Carliertwo (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} rough consensus for inclusion of the proposed material. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved sysop assess the consensus at Talk:Tomas Gorny#Request for Comment [RfC]: Should an article written by a Forbes staff writer be kept?? This RfC (Initiated 2867 days ago on 25 January 2017) needs closed. I should note that there are SPA accounts that joined the discussion in order to add a comment to delete the source. Eliko007 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note:The above user is one of the series of accounts which have recently emerged and are adamant in adding a bunch of puffery to the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Consensus for removal of the citation is clear and reasonably based in policy. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Added further explanation of close after this discussion on my talk page. Although not consistent with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I have explained my reasoning as a good-faith effort. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Consensus for removal of the citation is clear and reasonably based in policy. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of YouTubers/Archive 9#Propose simplifying inclusion criterion (Initiated 2867 days ago on 26 January 2017)? I started the 2011 discussion at Talk:List of YouTubers/Archive 5#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities, so I am not closing this discussion even though the consensus is clear. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} There is clear consensus for the proposed inclusion criteria. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Needs close from uninvolved editor. (Initiated 2863 days ago on 30 January 2017) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs) 11:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with consensus to remove the "Formation" section entirely. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Casey Affleck#RfC about details in Early Life section (Initiated 2890 days ago on 3 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Consensus against inclusion of ancestry information. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music#Images (Initiated 2888 days ago on 5 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus due to low participation and lack of substantiative arguments on how images should be treated or on standards for inclusion/removal. Recommend a better-formulated RfC with definite options. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Experienced and uninvolved editor requested to evaluate this RfC (Initiated 2885 days ago on 7 January 2017). Thank you. JerryRussell (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
There was a try for a closure by an involved editor, which I have reverted, as he himself has been the reason for this RFC.--85.74.33.233 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, there was. But this anon. ip. left out some essential information. The RfC was opened 7 Jan. by JerryRussell regarding some issues being pushed by this anonymous WP:SPA editor from Athens (self-identified as "AA", currently from the IP address 85.74.33.233). It was poorly formulated, and after a first round of drive-by opinions the discussions tended to flounder; there has been no substantive discussion since 1 Feb. The RfC expired on 7 Feb, and Jerry requested a close on the 10th, but there has been absolutely no action or discussion on the RfC since then. Jerry has been [till now] absent since the 10th, and as no one else seems interested I attempted to close it yesterday with a minimal summary that, aside from "Question #6",
there is no clear consensus either way
. However, "AA" objects (perhaps because Question #6 bears on "balancing" material he wanted to add), and he reverted, with the bare comment "involved editor". I restored, noting that no uninvolved editors have stepped up, which he reverted as "vandalism of the process
", and there we are. - Would someone (preferably without an ax to grind) please step up and put this RfC out of its misery? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, just wow, what a biased presentation of the situation by JJ. Yes, someone uninvolved please come and help us out. Thank you! JerryRussell (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Biased?? Like how – that there has been substantive discussion on the RfC since 1 Feb? Perhaps you consider your comment of 6 Feb (about closing the RfC) "substantive"? If you can find any discussion in the RfC since then please show some diffs. Otherwise I'd say you are dead-wrong as to the facts, and should look to your own bias. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- OK, the part that is biased is the part where you say
"It was poorly formulated, and after a first round of drive-by opinions the discussions tended to flounder."
While I've admitted that two of the six questions were not clearly formulated, there was nothing wrong with the other four. And I had to do some outreach to get enough participation in this highly technical RfC, but I did the outreach, we got the participation, and the outcome is clear. - Editors reading this squabbling might be concerned and not want to get involved, thinking that this is a tough close. It's not. The consensus is completely obvious, JJ is the only one who disagrees. But he won't let us close it as involved editors, except on his terms. JerryRussell (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- OK, the part that is biased is the part where you say
- Biased?? Like how – that there has been substantive discussion on the RfC since 1 Feb? Perhaps you consider your comment of 6 Feb (about closing the RfC) "substantive"? If you can find any discussion in the RfC since then please show some diffs. Otherwise I'd say you are dead-wrong as to the facts, and should look to your own bias. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, just wow, what a biased presentation of the situation by JJ. Yes, someone uninvolved please come and help us out. Thank you! JerryRussell (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, there was. But this anon. ip. left out some essential information. The RfC was opened 7 Jan. by JerryRussell regarding some issues being pushed by this anonymous WP:SPA editor from Athens (self-identified as "AA", currently from the IP address 85.74.33.233). It was poorly formulated, and after a first round of drive-by opinions the discussions tended to flounder; there has been no substantive discussion since 1 Feb. The RfC expired on 7 Feb, and Jerry requested a close on the 10th, but there has been absolutely no action or discussion on the RfC since then. Jerry has been [till now] absent since the 10th, and as no one else seems interested I attempted to close it yesterday with a minimal summary that, aside from "Question #6",
- No, the "terms" I have been insisting on are Wikipedia principles and mainstream scientific opinion. Also, your statement that I am "
the only one who disagrees
" is demonstrably false. But is this really the place to be arguing about that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- No, the "terms" I have been insisting on are Wikipedia principles and mainstream scientific opinion. Also, your statement that I am "
{{done}} Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you have stepped in (thanks), and am not going to belabor you on points where I disagree. But I would note, for the record, that the "consensus" now being implemented in the article, while agreeable to a subset of the WP editor class, is at odds with mainstream science. It is an indication that popular viewpoints are preferred to expert viewpoints. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
This RFC (Initiated 2878 days ago on 15 January 2017) needs a close. Thank youCasprings (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Would an experienced uninvolved editor kindly assess the consensus there? Thanks, — JFG talk 03:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Phew.—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, S Marshall (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Phew.—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Please may an experienced user close the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Template:US Presidential Administrations as no consensus? The discussion originally began (Initiated 2864 days ago on 29 January 2017) by myself and has been relisted once, however there is no sign of any consensus whatsoever. The discussion is a rather haphazard one, just to note.--Nevé–selbert 15:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Neve-selbert: With all due respect to your work, it seems to me that it's not proper for a participant in the discussion, even the OP, to instruct a closer about the consensus reached or lack thereof. Either you take responsibility to perform an involved {{nac}}, or you request an uninvolved closer to do the job with no prejudice as to their decision. — JFG talk 23:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Working on it Primefac (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
This discussion (Initiated 2871 days ago on 22 January 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Mdann52. Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Melania Trump/Archive 2#RfC: Photo (Initiated 2872 days ago on 21 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Political appointments of Donald Trump#RFC - Address significant content overlap (Initiated 2872 days ago on 21 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#Use of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner on articles (Initiated 2894 days ago on 30 December 2016) (using the date from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner due to the close relationship between the two discussions)? Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- That is not a RfC and does not need closing. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar. That will close as a SNOW keep. QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- The MfD you mention is about the sidebar, while the village pump discussion is about the banner. It wasn't originally listed in the RfC section; it has been moved twice. A closure is needed and overdue.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Both are the same thing but they have a different look. The new one can be put towards the bottom of the page. What we need is a bot to add it to all medical pages. Medpedia sounds better than Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, there is definitely not consensus for that, considering the banner page was explicitly prohibited from being used on articles by its mfd. Pppery 02:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- The mfd did not prohibit its use in articles. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- The mfd decreed a condition (i.e. "not to be inserted into articles without obtaining consensus to do so") for its use that was never met. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- There is consensus. The new sidebar may replace the banner for articles. QuackGuru (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- The mfd decreed a condition (i.e. "not to be inserted into articles without obtaining consensus to do so") for its use that was never met. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- The mfd did not prohibit its use in articles. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, there is definitely not consensus for that, considering the banner page was explicitly prohibited from being used on articles by its mfd. Pppery 02:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Both are the same thing but they have a different look. The new one can be put towards the bottom of the page. What we need is a bot to add it to all medical pages. Medpedia sounds better than Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- The MfD you mention is about the sidebar, while the village pump discussion is about the banner. It wasn't originally listed in the RfC section; it has been moved twice. A closure is needed and overdue.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
{{done}} I've unarchived this to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Use of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner on articles and closed the discussion. The consensus is against adding to articles in its current form, or in an alternative form that links to the Play Store (or equivalent) and/or is not dismissable, including by users who are not logged it. A link in the site sidebar should be discussed separately before being added. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 9#Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate has been relisted several times already (Initiated 2903 days ago on 21 December 2016) and no new arguments have been added since 21 February and needs closing. Full disclosure: I am very involved with this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure but I think every admin who regularly patrols RfD has participated in this one. Needs fresh eyes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 04:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. WJBscribe (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfD, WJBscribe! Cunard (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. WJBscribe (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#RFC on using "ancient Greek kingdom" instead of just "ancient kingdom" in the lead section (Initiated 2887 days ago on 6 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ouch. {{done}} Alsee (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
This discussion (Initiated 2873 days ago on 20 January 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This RfC (Initiated 2868 days ago on 25 January 2017) recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Easy peasy one.—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, S Marshall (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Needs an uninvolved party to close the discussion. (Initiated 2861 days ago on 1 February 2017) --George Ho (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 20:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Gamebuster19901 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please assess this RfC? It crossed the 30 day mark yesterday. Last comment was 1 March. Thanks! (Initiated 2855 days ago on 7 February 2017) Chris vLS (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's not reached 30 days yet; it will do so in about 19 hours time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- There's certainly no reason to let RFCs run a full 30 days if they're settled out. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, DarjeelingTea (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive948#User:Johnpacklambert (Initiated 2835 days ago on 27 February 2017)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive948#Proposal: limit JPL's AFD-rate. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
This RFC (Initiated 2858 days ago on 4 February 2017) has run more than a month and has been quiet for weeks. Needs a close. Dicklyon (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
{{done}} ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, J. Johnson (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus here. Thanks! (Initiated 2855 days ago on 7 February 2017) - SummerPhDv2.0 14:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Why? It's still got two days to run. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- RFCs don't need to run 30 days. They expire in 30 days, and can often be closed much sooner. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Lemongirl942. Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive212#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Rambling Man (Initiated 2828 days ago on 6 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by The Wordsmith, thank you! Cunard (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award#Request for comment on whether the Bronze Wolf Award by itself is enough to show notability of holders of the award (Initiated 2887 days ago on 6 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award#Request for comment on whether the Bronze Wolf Award by itself is enough to show notability of holders of the award ? Thanks, --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Cunard and Kintetsubuffalo: {{done}}. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2835 days ago on 27 February 2017) This is a political-advocacy discussion I initiated within the Australian community 3 months ago and has been an active proposal, with widespread publicity within the Australian community (geonotice, mailing lists, mass-message talkpage note) for about a week. 50+ individual user-accounts have expressed opinions and the number of new people commenting has dropped to 1 or <1 per day - no new comments for several days. Although this is shorter than the standard 30 day comment period for on-wiki debates, this particular proposal has external factors affecting its timing.
Even though a simple tally of supporting vs. opposed comments shows a strong preference towards the former, I would like to request a hitherto uninvolved and experienced administrator to provide a formal 'close' decision because of the unusual nature of this proposal - and because a fair assessment of the Australian-wikipedia community's consensus is crucial. [Note: WMF-Legal has also confirmed this is a technically&legally valid proposal in accordance with the relevant WMF policy. Wittylama 14:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy (Initiated 2866 days ago on 27 January 2017)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've added a part of the overall discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Concrete_proposal_1, separately below. Without comment on what the results should be, I believe that the overall discussion will be difficult to close, but that Concrete proposal 1, should be very easy to close, and, as the original proposer, I'd rather not see it get lost in the shuffle. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Link to a request for a three-person close of the RfC: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Re-requesting closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 1 (Initiated 2864 days ago on 29 January 2017)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion as part of the overall RfC Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy (the above listing). Thanks for any help. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Link to a request for a three-person close of the RfC: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Re-requesting closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar#Title of template (Initiated 2896 days ago on 28 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I recommend an admin take this one. There is a clear lean to the numbers, but this has a wide impact, strong views, and it warrants very careful consideration of the arguments and the effect. Alsee (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, S Marshall (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 26#Defining cosmetic changes (Initiated 2894 days ago on 30 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think a formal closure is needed for this one. The section has been archived, and the lack of consensus in them is obvious.
- {{done}} <-- for the bot. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RfC on Change RD1-wording (Initiated 2855 days ago on 7 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus Tazerdadog (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Clean coal technology#Request for comment on proposed move (Initiated 2855 days ago on 7 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Tazerdadog (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#Future of magic links (Initiated 2859 days ago on 3 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#Backlog of unpatrolled files (Initiated 2850 days ago on 12 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 7#RfC: Remove the grandfather clause? (Initiated 2846 days ago on 16 February 2017)? Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nintendo Switch#SoC details RfC (Initiated 2860 days ago on 2 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- It was probably moot by now, but {{Done}}. Perhaps it will help guide future articles. Alsee (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC on 5% threshold (Initiated 2859 days ago on 3 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#RfC: use of edit filter against unreliable sources (Initiated 2853 days ago on 9 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The uninvolved closer is needed to evaluate the consensus. (Initiated 2876 days ago on 16 January 2017) George Ho (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Huge support percentage, should be easy to close. The lack of a close is holding up progress on this matter. Alsee (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Alsee:--{{Done}}-I have closed the RFC.Winged Blades Godric 12:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Alsee:--{{Done}}-I have closed the RFC.Winged Blades Godric 12:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
This discussion (Initiated 2872 days ago on 20 January 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Partly done - Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Should there be a PROD-like deletion process that can be used as a G13-replacement? still needs a close, and I have no idea what it should be, so I left it alone. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Tazerdadog, I only partially reviewed the situation so I'm sure you're more familiar with it. If I understand the situation correctly, many of the responses are clear but some are a mess due to flawed RFC structure. I think you should to ping the incomprehensible responses asking for clarification, specifically given the close on the first half? Alsee (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Alsee:, I'd call that statement more or less correct, but the question raised by @BU Rob13:in his !vote of whether the prodlike process should apply throughout draftspace or just to AFC submissions is very relevant, and the RFC question as written doesn't touch it. I would be inclined to extend the discussion, calling for fresh comments in light of the closure on the above section, and specifically addressing the desired scope of the prodlike process. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Tazerdadog, I only partially reviewed the situation so I'm sure you're more familiar with it. If I understand the situation correctly, many of the responses are clear but some are a mess due to flawed RFC structure. I think you should to ping the incomprehensible responses asking for clarification, specifically given the close on the first half? Alsee (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} in line with Tazerdadog's last comment. Alsee (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Started the RfC discussion almost a month ago at Talk:Death of Alan Kurdi#Proposed merge with Nilüfer Demir. It needs closure. --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Deryck C. 16:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Deryck Chan (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:British Empire#RfC Laissez-faire link (Initiated 2876 days ago on 17 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} – S. Rich (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nissan Caravan#Useless dab tags (Initiated 2879 days ago on 14 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} – S. Rich (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Could some brave admin please assess the consensus at Talk:Kfar Ahim#RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian? (Initiated 2889 days ago on 4 January 2017)? One editor tried to close it, but it was reopened, hope we can finally close it soon, thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just a note to the closing admin, when you do close, you should make sure that you specify that it's only for the specific page, a multipage RFC can't be dealt with at one article's talk page. It needs to be in a central location and prominently advertised. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- This issue is addressed at the above talk-page, Huldra (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{close}} – S. Rich (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MAKS Air Show#RfC: Details (Initiated 2875 days ago on 18 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} – S. Rich (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Armenia#RFC for Western Asia vs. Eastern Europe (Initiated 2861 days ago on 1 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} – S. Rich (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Srich32977 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The backlog has been growing again, currently some 150 open discussions, the oldest is almost two months old. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- The backlog has now decreassed to just over 100 open discussions, thanks to User:BrownHairedGirl's recent efforts. Regardless of this, it's pretty important that more admins should regularly close discussions here. Without further admin involvement, we'll be back at 150 in two weeks. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Marcocapelle. There is a longstanding need for more admins to undertake this task regularly, and it now seems to be getting critical. BU Rob13 became an admin about a year and did great work closing many discussions, but has now stepped down as an admin, leaving a big gap. Rob's contribution was v welcome, but Marcocapelle is right that we need multiple more admins to help out.
I have been thinking about how to persuade admins more to help, and my best idea so far is to routinely add CFD-close questions to WP:RFA candidates. They are already closely questioned on AFD closures, which ensures that new admins are usually up-to-speed on that. It seems to me that doing the same thing for CFD would encourage more new admins to learn CFD before putting themselves forward, and also maybe tempt some existing admins to join in.
Any thoughts on that idea? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)- @BrownHairedGirl: I doubt that would convince candidates to jump in or convince experienced admins to try their hand at CfD. Instead, it's likely to cause more people to fail RfA ("You don't know WP:OVERCAT? Clearly needs more polish!" despite not wanting to work in CFD). Personally, I see the way forward as a combination of promoting from within (Marcocapelle would qualify for admin if he wanted it) and being more consistent in our activity (when we go a week without closing a discussion, it's hard to catch up. If all active closers close two discussions a day, it's easy.) Unfortunately, the paid editing/outing situation has caused me to largely withdraw from admin areas, so I won't be of much help. ~ Rob13Talk 03:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: good points. Will you help me try to persuade Marcocapelle to accept an RFA nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- :-) User:Fayenatic london tried that as well. Most importantly it wouldn't solve the problem because I'm already closing discussions and we need other people to join. Second, I would surely not pass the exams to become an admin since I'm only active in categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle, I don't know whether having the tools is useful at CfD, but looking at your contributions history, yes, you'd probably struggle to pass at RfA at this time. But that could be helped by you creating a handful of decent articles. Once done, you could check things out via WP:ORCP. You may be closer to it than you think. If that could be of interest to you, let's take this discussion to your talk page. Schwede66 08:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- :-) User:Fayenatic london tried that as well. Most importantly it wouldn't solve the problem because I'm already closing discussions and we need other people to join. Second, I would surely not pass the exams to become an admin since I'm only active in categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: good points. Will you help me try to persuade Marcocapelle to accept an RFA nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: I doubt that would convince candidates to jump in or convince experienced admins to try their hand at CfD. Instead, it's likely to cause more people to fail RfA ("You don't know WP:OVERCAT? Clearly needs more polish!" despite not wanting to work in CFD). Personally, I see the way forward as a combination of promoting from within (Marcocapelle would qualify for admin if he wanted it) and being more consistent in our activity (when we go a week without closing a discussion, it's hard to catch up. If all active closers close two discussions a day, it's easy.) Unfortunately, the paid editing/outing situation has caused me to largely withdraw from admin areas, so I won't be of much help. ~ Rob13Talk 03:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Marcocapelle. There is a longstanding need for more admins to undertake this task regularly, and it now seems to be getting critical. BU Rob13 became an admin about a year and did great work closing many discussions, but has now stepped down as an admin, leaving a big gap. Rob's contribution was v welcome, but Marcocapelle is right that we need multiple more admins to help out.
- {{done}}<-- for the bot. This discussion is stale, and appears to have run its course. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Can an experienced user assess the consensus in this discussion? --Mhhossein talk 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} – not formally closed. The talk page discussion died out months ago. – S. Rich (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2829 days ago on 5 March 2017) Needs closure by uninvolved admin. George Ho (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Timothy Winter#Request for comment on "controversies" section (Initiated 2872 days ago on 21 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} – S. Rich (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Melbourne car attack#Inaccurate capitalisation and spelling (Initiated 2866 days ago on 27 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Unnecessary – RFC is old and subsequent editing has cleared up the concern. – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} for the bot. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2896 days ago on 28 December 2016) Would appreciate a formal close by an uninvolved editor or administrator. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, Srich32977 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
This RfC (Initiated 2890 days ago on 3 January 2017) finished after 30 days of discussion, and I have now closed it to prevent the discussion from overrunning. This was merely a housekeeping closure; I have not determined a result, so I would like an administrator to override my closure with a result. Thank you. Linguisttalk|contribs 14:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Done per Linguist's comment. – S. Rich (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Linguist111 and Srich32977: Restoring this request - Lingists placeholder closure is still in placed, and the substance of the discussion has not been addressed. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 133#Multi-part RFC on Wikipedia:Recent years (Initiated 2880 days ago on 13 January 2017)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Beeblebrox.Winged Blades Godric 09:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Beeblebrox! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced and uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 World Rally Championship#RFC? (Initiated 2870 days ago on 23 January 2017)? It would also be advised to take the subsequent discussion, Talk:2017 World Rally Championship#Top-level article into account when closing this one, as the RFC participants posted contributions relevant to the RFC question in that discussion as well. Thanks, Tvx1 22:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Is anyone going to look into this. It's been more than 60 days and the discussion have now ended up being archived.Tvx1 08:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}--As it seems, the RFC attracted only two participants(both were involved in prev. discussions on the issue prior to the issue) in it's entire course.And a closure is thus definitely impossible.I will request you to re-open a RFC on the issue minus the long walls of text.If you feel that they are utterly necessary, just summarise each of your views in sentence or two or link to the archiveCheers!Winged Blades Godric 08:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2822 days ago on 12 March 2017) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thank-you. --Nevé–selbert 11:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tony Blair#RfC on inclusion of Iraq in the first paragraph (Initiated 2841 days ago on 21 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tourism in Georgia (country)#RfC for UNWTO classification (Initiated 2846 days ago on 16 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of France#RFC: "Decisive" included in the parameter result (Initiated 2844 days ago on 18 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 133#IP Block Exemptions should be expanded to include accounts (5+ years) in good standing (Initiated 2836 days ago on 26 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Sam Walton (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2833 days ago on 1 March 2017) Would an experienced editor (and not frequent aviation editor) assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Request for comment on terminal information in airline and destination tables? We have a vote of 14 supporting removal of concourse information from Airport Destinations Tables, while 3 oppose removal of the information. It has been 26 days since the discussion was opened, however, no contributions have been made in almost a week (6 days). Thanks! Stinger20 (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2814 days ago on 20 March 2017) Request assessment and closure from an experienced, uninvolved editor at Talk:Day Without a Woman#Request for Comments on including organizers. The RfC has been open for six days, and there have been significant objections to its wording. Please also see related discussion at DRN. Funcrunch (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2815 days ago on 19 March 2017) Request assessment and closure from an experienced, uninvolved editor at Talk:X-Men_(film_series)#RfC_about_change _in_title_for_X-Men_(film_series). The RfC has been open for 9 days with significant discussion and survery responses. Brocicle (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Brocicle:{{Not done}}-That it has recieved significant participation from the community hardly indicates that it should be closed after a paltry 9 days of run.Winged Blades Godric 10:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Talk:Demagogue#RfC on Donald Trump inclusion (Initiated 2843 days ago on 19 February 2017)? Thanks, – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2836 days ago on 26 February 2017) - Would appreciate an experienced editor to assess consensus and close. 
Thank you very much! ―Mandruss ☎ 13:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
A close here would be good as the articles in question are high-traffic. (Initiated 2868 days ago on 25 January 2017) 121.218.198.209 (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Reza Aslan/Archive 2#Aslan on Ahmadinejad (Initiated 2856 days ago on 6 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}}:-Winged Blades Godric 04:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#Request for comment: opinion of Paul Gregory (Initiated 2847 days ago on 15 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Would some kind soul assess consensus there and close the debate? (Initiated 2832 days ago on 2 March 2017) Thanks, — JFG talk 05:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Requesting uninvolved closer. I'm unsure if the template expired or if it was ever inserted correctly in the first place. RfC has gone for 30 days either way and is ready to be closed.(Initiated 2831 days ago on 3 March 2017)LM2000 (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Done:-Winged Blades Godric 12:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, for closing the RfC, Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Erika Lauren Wasilewski#Request for comment (Initiated 2837 days ago on 25 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Regina Spektor#RfC: is Regina Spektor "American" or "Russian-American"? (Initiated 2834 days ago on 28 February 2017)? Please consider Talk:Regina Spektor#RfC result (from the section above) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sebastian Gorka#RfC regarding Gorka's association with anti-semitic groups (Initiated 2825 days ago on 9 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sean Spicer/Archive 2#RfC regarding lead material (Initiated 2829 days ago on 5 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 133#RFC on use of WP:OUTCOMES in deletion discussions (Initiated 2833 days ago on 1 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Visa requirements for Georgian citizens#RfC for map usage (Initiated 2826 days ago on 8 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Post-progressive#Request for comment (Initiated 2949 days ago on 5 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Post-progressive#Request for comment 2 (Initiated 2826 days ago on 8 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC on lead sentence (Initiated 2826 days ago on 8 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Mahinda College alumni#RFC about the use of tables as opposed to lists (Initiated 2833 days ago on 1 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#RfC: remove the proscription against previously-linked terms in the "See also" section? (Initiated 2835 days ago on 27 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
There is overwhelming evidence for, and consensus for, the status quo. WP:RM appears to be the appropriate forum for further discussions of this topic [1] Siuenti (씨유엔티) 10:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Done Closed with suggestion to discuss further at WP:RM. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2877 days ago on 16 January 2017) Been open for two months and has consensus to delete, I'd say. pbp 03:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Already done by BU Rob13. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
We have 1 RM discussion from early March still open. (Initiated 2830 days ago on 4 March 2017) Would a disinterested admin please close it anyway? Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Consensus clearly favors delisting the article; however, the talk page has seen a good deal of non-AGF and ad hominem remarks, and so would benefit from an uninvolved editor's assistance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Done @Sangdeboeuf: I have also carried out the required GA delisting steps. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2805 days ago on 29 March 2017) This informal survey has reached a stable point where no new editors are participating, and there seems to be consensus on the preferred outcome. However, I don't want to close it because I'm WP:INVOLVED, and so are a bunch of "regulars" at the article. Would some kind soul perform a formal close? — JFG talk 15:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Done at 17:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC) by Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tom Brady/Archive 3#RfC: Should the lead mention Deflategate? (Initiated 2867 days ago on 26 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing and Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC on adding latest video about Trump inauguration
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing (Initiated 2874 days ago on 19 January 2017) and Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC on adding latest video about Trump inauguration (Initiated 2873 days ago on 20 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Partially implemented--The 2nd RFC has been closed by Obsidi.Winged Blades Godric
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Proposed merge with Dangerous (book) (Initiated 2841 days ago on 21 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar#Request for Comment: Spanish Position Section of Article (Initiated 2859 days ago on 3 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Done:-Winged Blades Godric 16:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, for closing the RfC, Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vikings (TV series)#Links from the cast list section (Initiated 2847 days ago on 15 February 2017)? There is disagreement about what the consensus is. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Done:-Winged Blades Godric 07:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, for closing the RfC, Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2797 days ago on 6 April 2017) I'm happy they don't really need to be in Wikipedia space, if someone want to chase them into my user space maybe they could start a new debate. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done @Siuenti: Deletion discussions typically run for a minimum of seven days (unless faced with overwhelming consensus per WP:SNOW) and there's no justification for you to come here to request the closure of that deletion discussion, particularly because you're an involved editor. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 15#Workshopping an RfC on the inactivity policy (Initiated 2897 days ago on 27 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Section has been archived. Yaris678 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert Sungenis#RfC re geocentrism (Initiated 2842 days ago on 20 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the consensus at Talk:Operation Storm#Using primary sources (Initiated 2842 days ago on 20 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Not sure--With the amount of editors involved in the RFC so stunningly low and opposing view-points among those who participated, gauging and writing a closure is a difficult task.Winged Blades Godric 15:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)- {{Not done}}-The afore-said problem makes a closure impossible.Also see how to phrase a good RFC question.Winged Blades Godric 11:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Listing this here to ensure an eventual close as it affects a large number of articles. (Initiated 2821 days ago on 13 March 2017) Cheers, Laurdecl talk 09:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Air (band)#Rfc (Initiated 2835 days ago on 27 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- The initiator is asking me to close it here and here. As one who has (i) warned both of the primary participants in the dispute for WP:EW; (ii) edited the page to remove the disputed text; and (iii) protected that version of the disputed page, it's best that I don't close this myself. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Redrose64:-{{done}}:-Winged Blades Godric 09:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- -{{not done}} I ask for another decision from another uninvolved user and this time an administrator please, as @Winged Blades of Godric: can't count the votes apparently. There's a consensus for "Sometimes stylized as air". The people who voted for "sometimes are: Koui² (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC), Argento Surfer (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC), Chilton (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC), Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC), Korny O'Near (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC), 1 voted for Neither, and 2 voted for "often stylized as air". Do I have to contact an adminitrator? @Redrose64:. Iennes (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Iennes: You "demand"? No. That is not how Wikipedia works. Everything done here is voluntary; nobody is (or can be) forced to take any action whatsoever (people can be forced not to take action, by means of blocks and protections, but that is not the same at all). Also, why do you need censorship? Wikipedia is not censored. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I have every right to ask another user for another decision; it is allowed if my memory serves for a rfc. In this case, there's a consensus for one version aned it should have been respected. It is very strange that you don't address anything concerning the result of the votes. Have you counted ? Why discussing if at the end, someone doesn't respect the result of the opinions expressed. Iennes (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't deny that you have the right to ask for another decision. But you cannot demand it. Also, please note that the outcome of an RfC (as with almost all other types of discussion) is not determined by counting votes. The closer (who need not be an admin, see WP:NACRFC) considers the strengths of the points put forward by both sides; they may also consider just how those points were made. Aggressive posts can count for less than reasoned, calm comments. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @The rfc was not about a policy to apply or not, it was about which version one could included. Henceforward, there's a consensus even "rough" for the version with "sometimes"; one can't deny it. I note that you don't comment what I addressed. Seeing the number of rfcs this user took the power to decide today, I wonder if he has passed a lot of time on it. just wondering. Iennes (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't deny that you have the right to ask for another decision. But you cannot demand it. Also, please note that the outcome of an RfC (as with almost all other types of discussion) is not determined by counting votes. The closer (who need not be an admin, see WP:NACRFC) considers the strengths of the points put forward by both sides; they may also consider just how those points were made. Aggressive posts can count for less than reasoned, calm comments. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I have every right to ask another user for another decision; it is allowed if my memory serves for a rfc. In this case, there's a consensus for one version aned it should have been respected. It is very strange that you don't address anything concerning the result of the votes. Have you counted ? Why discussing if at the end, someone doesn't respect the result of the opinions expressed. Iennes (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Iennes: You "demand"? No. That is not how Wikipedia works. Everything done here is voluntary; nobody is (or can be) forced to take any action whatsoever (people can be forced not to take action, by means of blocks and protections, but that is not the same at all). Also, why do you need censorship? Wikipedia is not censored. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse the decision to close the RfC as No Consensus. I've examined the RfC discussion and it's not about numbers - it's about the weight of each side of the argument. In this case, both sides of the discussion carry equal weight, and No Consensus is the appropriate call. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @@Exemplo347: you must be kidding. People clearly voted and there's a consensus only one person clearly said "neither" option and one advanced "sometimes" while saying if one version has to be chosen at the end. Most of the users clearly chose the version with "sometimes"; cancelling the whole thing seems extreme. We were two users disagreeing at the beginning and now none of us saw their version included. I think that you are not impartial. I would prefer that this case was seen by an administrator if you don't mind. Iennes (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- You've asked for a second opinion. You've received a second opinion. I wasn't involved in the discussion in any way, so I'd remind you to Assume Good Faith before accusing someone of not being impartial. Are you going to keep asking for more opinions until you get the one you want, or are you going to drop the stick so everyone can go back to editing Wikipedia? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- My request is that an administrator who often edits on music articles reads this rfc and closes it. Then I would completely accept the result without any objection. Iennes (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- So you don't just want an administrator now, you want one who often edits on music articles? That's moving the goalposts - and it's not how the Requests for Closure process works. If an administrator happens to come along who disagrees with the closure, they will ask the person who performed the closure to re-open the discussion. You'll just have to wait to see if that happens. In the meantime, it was "no consensus" - so you can carry on using your preferred terminology in the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- My request is that an administrator who often edits on music articles reads this rfc and closes it. Then I would completely accept the result without any objection. Iennes (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- You've asked for a second opinion. You've received a second opinion. I wasn't involved in the discussion in any way, so I'd remind you to Assume Good Faith before accusing someone of not being impartial. Are you going to keep asking for more opinions until you get the one you want, or are you going to drop the stick so everyone can go back to editing Wikipedia? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment by closer--I re-read the RFC and I feel my closure was right.And Iennes, please read WP:NOTAVOTE.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 06:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2841 days ago on 20 February 2017) Several entries are still open despite the discussion having concluded. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Already closed by another editor. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emmett Till#Emmett Till lead sentence RFC (Initiated 2856 days ago on 6 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Close already performed by another editor. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Human/Archive 34#Proposed merge with "Homo sapiens" (Initiated 2881 days ago on 12 January 2017)? —MartinZ (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Requesting closure from an uninvolved editor. (Initiated 2845 days ago on 17 February 2017)North America1000 20:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} @Northamerica1000: Closed as "Keep GA rating." Exemplo347 (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2886 days ago on 6 January 2017) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox unit#RfC: capitalization rule for name parameter (Initiated 2885 days ago on 8 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kevin O'Leary/Archives/2018#Request for Comment on Kevin O'Leary/Donald Trump comparisons (Initiated 2831 days ago on 3 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2811 days ago on 23 March 2017) Several days over the week listing period and not that contentious a move review. Just needs someone to close. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} @TonyBallioni: Result: Endorse Exemplo347 (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137#RFC on WP:RESTRICT (Initiated 2868 days ago on 25 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}} RfC has been archived. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved but experienced closer may be needed. (Initiated 2817 days ago on 17 March 2017) George Ho (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Exemplo347 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Exemplo347 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
South African Copyright Act amendment advocacy
I would like to know if experienced editor assess the consensus and close the vote for both votes on the same issue (namely on wheather we should use a central notice banner in South Africa to advocate for the amendment of the South African Copyright Act to allow for Freedom of Panorama) on both Afrikaans and English Wikipedia? The vote has been up since late March and has so far had strong support from both communities and seems to include a very large proportion of the South African editors I am aware of.
- South African Copyright Act amendment vote on English Wikipedia (South Africa project portal).
- African Copyright Act amendment vote on Afrikaans Wikipedia - I am not so sure if this is the best place for asking to close the discussion on Afrikaans Wikipedia I dont really know of any where else to ask for that Wiki and I am sure the Afrikaans community would be okay with it. Thanks, Discott (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}--@Discott:--I have closed the request on en.wiki.You cannot request a closure of some thread at Afrikaan wiki on en.wiki.Please post the request to some experienced contributor/admin over there.And anyway, the second link does not work.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 12:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Winged Blades Godric. Sorry about the broken link, I will sort it out at af.wikipedia.--Discott (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Winged Blades Godric. Sorry about the broken link, I will sort it out at af.wikipedia.--Discott (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Link to discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Copyright Act amendment. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Is anyone willing to assess the consensus for this RfC (Initiated 2854 days ago on 8 February 2017), which was just de-listed after 30 days? Thanks. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- @DrFleischman: - OK I will have a look.
Doing... TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography#Vital statistics tables in country demography articles (Initiated 2882 days ago on 11 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Nazism sidebar#RfC: Swastika size in infobox (2, take 2) (Initiated 2820 days ago on 14 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Manassas, Virginia#RfC about the large map of surrounding counties (Initiated 2818 days ago on 16 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}}.Given the nature of expressive views and a dearth of participants,it's hard to gauge a consensus(if any).And I'm against a relist.Winged Blades Godric 16:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Several entries are open despite the discussion having concluded. (Initiated 2804 days ago on 30 March 2017) K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion on merging One Million Plan -> Aliyah Bet (Initiated 3340 days ago on 11 October 2015) with three editors participating, and no further discussion. In my opinion there is a majority for merge 2:1, but since I was the one to initiate the discussion - it is proper for an external objective closure of the RfC.GreyShark (dibra) 18:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}}--Too stale and too old! See WP:RM#CM.Winged Blades Godric 03:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2795 days ago on 8 April 2017) Has 1 !vote (mine), has been relisted twice, is up for third relisting, but XFDclose's relisting tool won't let me relist it. Thanks. L3X1 (distant write) 19:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive952#User:Beatley and SvG articles salvation effort (Initiated 2789 days ago on 14 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Jo-Jo Eumerus. BencherliteTalk 17:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288#Jennepicfoundation: move from topic ban to full ban
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288#Jennepicfoundation: move from topic ban to full ban (Initiated 2782 days ago on 21 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by De728631. BencherliteTalk 17:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:West Montrose, Ontario#RfC about the photo of the buggy (Initiated 2828 days ago on 6 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - procedural closure as the leading proponent of the picture has compromised. Deryck C. 17:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Deryck Chan (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2804 days ago on 30 March 2017) Would an experienced editor please see what, if any, further conclusions can be drawn from this RfC beyond the historicalisation of the Featured Portals process. Thanks. BencherliteTalk 15:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Bencherlite: Thanks for bringing this up. I agree with you that there's unanimous consensus to tag Featured Portals as historical, but to draw further administrative conclusions from it would be beyond the scope of ANRFC. Since the discussion has itself fallen onto an archive page I don't think formal closure would be necessary.
- But since you asked, as a passerby admin I spotted these possible follow-up actions from this RfC:
- Deprecation actions: Something should be done with existing featured portals, for example giving them a badge of recognition that isn't quite the same as a full featured articles star. This and other actions directly relevant to the deprecation of featured portals would be best done boldly because the project itself fizzled out due to inactivity, so discussion without prior opposition would be unnecessary.
- Maybe discuss the possibility of merging Featured Portals into Featured Lists.
- Some suggested a radical action of deprecating portals altogether. This will also require a separate discussion.
- As far as ANRFC is concerned I'm tagging this as {{not done}}. Deryck C. 17:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Needs an uninvolved opinion to assess the consensus. Currently stands at 8 yes's and 8 no's . Be mindful of dumb answers and people voting twice. 21:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - No consensus. However, in accordance with policy, remove candidates who are not supported strongly by reliable sources. A new RFC on specific candidates is recommended. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2812 days ago on 22 March 2017)
- @Robert McClenon: "The number of No statements, which mean not to remove the speculative candidates, slightly exceed the number of Yes statement." This is not true, someone bolded "no" twice. Could you please fix your RfC statement accordingly. Thanks. Prcc27 (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 191#RfC: Substantiating the choices of examples (MOS:EXAMPLES) (Initiated 2823 days ago on 11 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}}--The consensus is clear at a glance.There's no substantial benefit in restoring it back,closing and re-archiving.Winged Blades Godric 04:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2792 days ago on 11 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2791 days ago on 12 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I know this was just opened, but this was opened after a community consensus was reached and the user who disagreed with it didn't want to honor the community's thoughts. I would like a speedy closure as the user is being disruptive and preventing the community's decision from being enforced. The consensus is also nearly unanimous. (I expect the disruptive editor to show up here and say I personally attacked him by pointing out his disruption.) (Initiated 2775 days ago on 28 April 2017) nihlus kryik (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
| This is the page for making requests for closure, not the place to continue a dispute |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I wasn't being disruptive, I was adding context via a neutral statement. Your views on what is classed as disruptive is concerning. Brocicle (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
|
- {{not done}} - this is the page for making requests for closure, not the place to continue a dispute. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please discuss the merits of the closure request and not the drama that other editors are bringing to my request. Thanks. nihlus kryik (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2804 days ago on 30 March 2017) Started in March with the last comment being on April 3rd. Well over the seven day listing period. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 132#Future years- how far is too far? (Initiated 2847 days ago on 15 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - closed yesterday. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist)#RfC about SPLC identifying Murray as a White Nationalist (Initiated 2828 days ago on 6 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Requesting uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2827 days ago on 7 March 2017) --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Doing... Primefac (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sebastian Gorka#RfC regarding antisemitism (Initiated 2834 days ago on 28 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} --Izno (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement#RfC about lead (Initiated 2828 days ago on 6 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate#RfC about the languages in the lead (Initiated 2824 days ago on 10 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election, 2020/Archive 3#RFC: Should the Speculative Candidates sections be removed? (Initiated 2812 days ago on 22 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Closed 28 April. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Talk:2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting#RfC about adding victim's family's reaction to "Reactions" section
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting#RfC about adding victim's family's reaction to "Reactions" section (Initiated 2810 days ago on 24 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} on 28 April. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC regarding "non-editors" (Initiated 2813 days ago on 21 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:American Automobile Association#RfC on list of AAA regional clubs (Initiated 2813 days ago on 21 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing (Initiated 2874 days ago on 19 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}}(non-admin closure) Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 17:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Gamebuster19901 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Although there is clear consensus, there is also high contention, so would an uninvolved editor, please close this? (Initiated 2802 days ago on 1 April 2017)? Thanks, --2601:648:8503:4467:D82F:EA1A:BEAB:EF93 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal#RfC on placement of "British-Pakistani" in the lede
Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2788 days ago on 15 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
As the person who started the RfC, I endorse this request for closure. Could a neutral admin please close it? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken and George Ho:--Is there any problem in letting it run for the due course esp. when a snow-close is out of order?Winged Blades Godric 07:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Another editor requested a close, and as the initiator I saw no reason that it shouldn't be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken and George Ho:--{{done}}:-Well there seems to be little point in lingering a stale RFC and I have closed it.Winged Blades Godric 16:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Another editor requested a close, and as the initiator I saw no reason that it shouldn't be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Several entries are open despite the discussion having concluded. (Initiated 2808 days ago on 26 March 2017) K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion has been open almost four weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- Tavix (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2839 days ago on 23 February 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Ivanvector about 20 minutes ago. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfD, Ivanvector! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2845 days ago on 17 February 2017) Overwhelming consensus against merging, please close. Seraphim System (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}}:-Winged Blades Godric 07:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor kindly close this RfC? (Initiated 2794 days ago on 9 April 2017) — JFG talk 09:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Yashovardhan (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Yashovardhan Dhanania (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2796 days ago on 7 April 2017) George Ho (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
On hold until 30 days has passed Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Gamebuster19901. George Ho (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2813 days ago on 21 March 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by BDD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, BDD! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert Plant#RfC: is Robert Plant's net worth in 2012 extraneous trivia, or does it belong in Robert Plant's biography? (Initiated 2837 days ago on 25 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Corey Stewart (politician)#RfC: How to handle his campaign's Wikipedia editing? (Initiated 2809 days ago on 25 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1873 in Germany#RfC on "Born in" year. See comment for more detail. (Initiated 2807 days ago on 27 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gaslighting#RfC about Trump section (Initiated 2803 days ago on 31 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Harem#RfC about Quranic influence (Initiated 2772 days ago on 1 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}}:-They have fairly got along the right lines.No need for a closure!Winged Blades Godric 08:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288#Standard offer unblock request from user Edday1051 (Initiated 2783 days ago on 20 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - this fell off and was archived while I consulted with the CheckUser, but consensus was clear. I have not modified the archive but the user has been unblocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, Ivanvector! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Blue Army (Poland)#RFC: use of a reference source that was taken down by the encyclopedia (Initiated 2801 days ago on 2 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the topic ban discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive953#RXX-7979Ⅲ and historical deletionism (Initiated 2773 days ago on 30 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, Cuchullain! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Could an experience and uninvolved editor close the following RFC. It relates to the wording in both Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections and United States presidential election, 2016. (Initiated 2827 days ago on 7 March 2017) Casprings (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Casprings: After just over four days? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Yeah, you are right.Casprings (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I think now it's time. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Yeah, you are right.Casprings (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we have enough time and enough people have taken part in the discussion.Casprings (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Any chance someone can take a look at this now? Its been open for awhile and I think there is consensus.Casprings (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Exemplo347 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echosmith discography has now been relisted thrice without stating a reason for doing so. Please disposition this discussion, which I cannot close per WP:INVOLVED. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I have closed all of the simple AFDs that I can, the others are more complex or require a vote of delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- (Initiated 2855 days ago on 7 February 2017) Problem already solved by discussants, just a formal closure needed (but I contributed myself). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Closed. BencherliteTalk 09:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} (for bot) Pppery 01:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved user please assess the consensus of this discussion and close it? You'll have to drag it out of the archive in order to do so. Thanks! (Initiated 2857 days ago on 5 February 2017) Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac:--Wanna do this?Winged Blades Godric 17:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Winged Blades of Godric, I've got a draft close but it's rather nuanced. If you want to find a third, we can bounce ideas off each other. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm happy to take a look. --Izno (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac and Izno:--That's a good idea!Winged Blades Godric 03:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Working Primefac (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - just waiting for cosigners. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} -Co-signed by all!Winged Blades Godric 16:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Winged Blades of Godric, I've got a draft close but it's rather nuanced. If you want to find a third, we can bounce ideas off each other. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- (Initiated 2788 days ago on 15 April 2017) relisted thrice. 3 !vote to delete, last one 5 days ago. Why do my AfDs always drag on and on?? Does this happen to anyone else? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
{{not done}} As you've been relisting it yourself, after you started the AfD yourself, I think you should let it run its course. An uninvolved admin would have probably closed the AfD after the 3rd relisting as "No Consensus" and usually, it's only uninvolved editors or admins who decide to relist or close an AfD. Exemplo347 (talk)
- {{done}}, before I noticed this was listed here, I saw it at Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times. I agree this probably sat open because it was relisted so many times: AfDs don't show up in any of the backlogs until it's been seven days from the last relist. If you relist a stale debate it goes to the top of the queue. Best to just leave it when the result is obvious but you can't close it yourself. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John Fleming (American politician)#Request for Comment: 2017 discussion on The Onion "incident." (Initiated 2802 days ago on 1 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about the photo in the Capture and release of hostages section (Initiated 2770 days ago on 3 May 2017)? Thanks, David.moreno72 08:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}--Let it run it's course!Too early to discuss about staleness. Winged Blades Godric 16:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anti-fascism#United States: 2016 to Current -- vote on whether to include section on Trump protestors and/or present-day antifa in US (Initiated 2806 days ago on 28 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2789 days ago on 14 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Piccadilly Rats has been opened since April 18 2017 and has one deletion vote and one comment. I'd say it's ready for a closure. Please close it up, I am unable to as I started the discussion. Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ 12:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to increase participation. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- (Initiated 2799 days ago on 4 April 2017) Discussion died down a long time ago, and there are ongoing issues with edits placing pages in the category. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Fayenatic london Pppery 21:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Needs uninvolved closer to close one or more discussions. (Initiated 2773 days ago on 30 April 2017) George Ho (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer is needed. (Initiated 2782 days ago on 21 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- (Initiated 2826 days ago on 8 March 2017) Looks like there is consensus (but I contributed myself). – Fayenatic London 08:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2808 days ago on 26 March 2017) George Ho (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Still needs it. Close should be fairly obvious though, so this isn't a tough one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd love to close the RfC myself, even when I'm involved. However, I would prefer someone else to perform the closure instead with a good rationale. (Initiated 2767 days ago on 6 May 2017) --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Winged Blades of Godric Yashovardhan (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2790 days ago on 13 April 2017). A good level of participation, but no clear consensus between two alternatives. An outside close would be appreciated. NAC would be fine. Scolaire (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Working Yashovardhan (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - A tough closure indeed but I tried my best. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2763 days ago on 10 May 2017) --George Ho (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Professional Super Smash Bros. competition#RFC on inclusion of material in a number of sections
(Initiated 2784 days ago on 19 April 2017). I believe the consensus is clear after the past three weeks (I'm fine waiting the full month), but at least one editor is acting contrary to the expected consensus, so I'm asking for an experienced, uninvolved editor to close the RFC formally. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Yashovardhan (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Yashovardhan Dhanania (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2756 days ago on 17 May 2017) Could an uninvolved editor please close this RfC. Although the outcome is clear, a closure will make it less likely that the issue will be relitigated in the near future, as sometimes happens in American Politics articles. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} for now. The RFC has been up for only 2 days. Although, there seems to be a clear consensus, I would suggest letting it run for at least a week. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2848 days ago on 14 February 2017) Looks like there is consensus (but I contributed myself). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2845 days ago on 17 February 2017) Looks like there is consensus (but I contributed myself). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the CfD, Deryck Chan (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Erik Prince#RfC: Ties to Trump transition (Initiated 2797 days ago on 6 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Album-oriented rock#RfC: Acknowledging "adult-oriented rock" (Initiated 2883 days ago on 10 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not done-Given that this was relisted twice, the discussion is too scarce for a closure.Winged Blades Godric 09:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Generation Snowflake#RFC - article title and NPOV (Initiated 2808 days ago on 26 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not done:-No practical use of a closure in such a short discussion.Winged Blades Godric 04:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer is needed. (Initiated 2775 days ago on 28 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Doing....Winged Blades Godric 17:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Requesting early closure because of possible BLP implications of the disputed section. (Initiated 2759 days ago on 14 May 2017) — JFG talk 15:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- @JFG:{{Not done}}:--Regretably, the situation isn't one-sided enough for the execution of a snow closure--on any grounds.Let it run!Winged Blades Godric 12:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Cao Bang (1979)#RfC: Result (Initiated 2792 days ago on 11 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Flag#RfC about section "Similar flags" (Initiated 2784 days ago on 19 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Controversial Reddit communities#RfC Including SRS as a Controversial Reddit Community (Initiated 2764 days ago on 9 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#RfC: Articles with only IMDb references eligible for BLPPROD? (Initiated 2788 days ago on 15 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 3125 days ago on 13 May 2016)
Discussion been ongoing very slowly for a year (!), personally I can see a consensus and would close it myself if I knew how to action the request. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Could an administrator assess the consensus at the ban discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive955#Proposal: ban In ictu oculi from moving articles without going through RM (Initiated 2772 days ago on 1 May 2017)? Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 15:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- For better clarity: (Initiated 2772 days ago on 1 May 2017). --George Ho (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Deryck C. --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- (Initiated 2848 days ago on 14 February 2017) Stale discussion, no contributions after end of March (but I contributed myself). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like consensus now (but I also contributed). – Fayenatic London 08:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Explicit. Deryck C. 16:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like consensus now (but I also contributed). – Fayenatic London 08:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Justice Mission#Request for comment on placement of criticism (Initiated 2826 days ago on 8 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Relisted due to low participation. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} After relisting, the rough consensus supports incorporation of criticism where appropriate throughout the article instead of in one "Criticism" section. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template (Initiated 2819 days ago on 15 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus for the proposal as written. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again) (Initiated 2802 days ago on 1 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with clear consensus for grouping and rough consensus for grouping into tenure and highlight sections. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:European Graduate School#RfC about use primary sources in section "Status" (Initiated 2805 days ago on 29 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus for altering the inclusion of the sources listed. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lithuania#RfC: Lithuania in the USSR debate. (Initiated 2805 days ago on 29 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Winged Blades of Godric on 26 May 2017, updating listing here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Requesting uninvolved closer, even though the request seems early. (Initiated 2757 days ago on 16 May 2017) --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Mz7, for whom I thank. --George Ho (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Uninvolved closer is needed please. (Initiated 2751 days ago on 22 May 2017) George Ho (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the move review, Deryck Chan (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Need an uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2770 days ago on 3 May 2017) George Ho (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Jytdog. --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, Jytdog! Cunard (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive955#WP:HOUND (Initiated 2773 days ago on 30 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Kudpung. Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#User:Xx236.27s disruptive editing and advocacy on Vladimir Lenin and other Soviet themed articles (Initiated 2747 days ago on 26 May 2017)? Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Vanamonde93. Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy (Initiated 2866 days ago on 27 January 2017)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've added a part of the overall discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Concrete_proposal_1, separately below. Without comment on what the results should be, I believe that the overall discussion will be difficult to close, but that Concrete proposal 1, should be very easy to close, and, as the original proposer, I'd rather not see it get lost in the shuffle. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Link to a request for a three-person close of the RfC: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Re-requesting closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Restored from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 23#Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy. Closer Primefac (talk · contribs) self-reverted their close and wrote, "I reverted the closure because of concerns with the wording, not with the overall result. Another editor (or two) to add to the close discussion will result in a much more polished result. I see no reason to not partake in that discussion." The other closer, S Marshall (talk · contribs) wrote, "Primefac being uncomfortable with it, I'll accept that the close should be vacated and redone by someone else."
I am listing this discussion here since Primefac would like another editor or two to participate in another close.
- Milieu 3, Milieu 4, Concrete proposal 1, Concrete proposal 2, and Concrete proposal 3 need separate closures from uninvolved closer(s). I already closed milieu 1, milieu 2, and milieu 5. George Ho (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Milieu 3, Concrete proposal 1 and Concrete proposal 2 have been closed by me.Winged Blades Godric 12:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been thinking. After closing all the milieus and concrete proposals, I wonder whether closing the remainder of the whole discussion as a whole is possible. If not, how about separately closing "RfC discussion" (including Break 1), Break 2, and Break 3? George Ho (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @George Ho:--I feel that all discussions need not be closed esp. given that the spectrum is too broad.Winged Blades Godric 16:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Got it, Godric. BTW, emailed you. George Ho (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Milieu 4 and Concrete proposal 3 still remain. --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish diaspora#RFC concerning how to present the reasons causing the Diaspora (Initiated 2797 days ago on 6 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Neutrality (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RfC regarding bolding of sponsored names (Initiated 2801 days ago on 2 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Working Yashovardhan (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Relisted by Yashovardhan Dhanania.Winged Blades Godric 04:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) thanks. Was just mentioning this! Yashovardhan (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Neutrality. Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) thanks. Was just mentioning this! Yashovardhan (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2785 days ago on 17 April 2017) This RfC recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This still has not been closed yet. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Winged Blades of Godric. It's been days since you stated that you would close this, and there have been additional votes since then. Are you still going to close this RfC? If you'd rather not, then maybe Armbrust or Cunard would? I would ask I JethroBT, but he edits sporadically these days and I've asked him to close more than one RfC. I don't know too many editors who specialize in closing RfCs and/or close a lot of them. AlbinoFerret is semi-retired. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}}:-Winged Blades Godric 04:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abraham#Infobox RfC (Initiated 2791 days ago on 12 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Neutrality. Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Muhammad#RfC (Initiated 2788 days ago on 15 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Neutrality. Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2774 days ago on 28 April 2017) Uninvolved closer needed. The archive bot put it in the archive. Crewcamel (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States#Request for Comment on Diversity Descriptions (Initiated 2770 days ago on 3 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}:-There are obvious problems with the framing of the RFC.Winged Blades Godric 06:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect#RfC - Article versions (Initiated 2779 days ago on 24 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 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 2772 days ago on 1 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}--Discussion is too scarce.I am not going to do it but relisting is a possibility.Winged Blades Godric 06:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Relisted. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights#RFC regarding Washington Post critique (Initiated 2772 days ago on 1 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:En Marche!#RfC about the position of the party (Initiated 2769 days ago on 4 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#RfC on Rivers: updating the naming/disambiguation conventions (Initiated 2776 days ago on 27 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Following four discussions were sort of heated (two of them definitely are). As none of the discussions did not achieve consensus, they provide a false impression. Requesting an unbiased closure, based on facts/sources provided in the discussions. this, that, this, and that. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}-The discusion wasn't an RFC.And this is not a place to ask to close random discussions.Winged Blades Godric 06:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: sure. Where should this be taken to? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Where should this be taken to? —usernamekiran(talk) 22:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Don't know. Don't care, except that the point I was making was that since these four discussions were not requests for comment, they shouldn't have been listed in the RfCs section of this page, which has four sections, each with a different purpose. They also did not require admin action, and were not pages for deletion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Echo Redrose64.Winged Blades Godric 02:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric and Redrose64: you two geniuses should read this: Wikipedia:Closing discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- I thought I already made it clear, we only close RfC and RMs on article talk pages, or if a discussion is especially heated (nuclear). An article talk page is not ANI. We don't close a discussion because a participant thinks it gives the wrong impression. Just make a note of why that is at the bottom of the discussion and any reader can make up their own minds. Insulting editors who are rightly confused by your request is not on. El_C 09:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric and Redrose64: you two geniuses should read this: Wikipedia:Closing discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@El C: I apologise. I thought by "we" you meant admins. Wikipedia:Closing discussions states discussions on talkpage of articles can be closed if the situation calls for it.
If @Winged Blades of Godric: was confused by my request or didn't know what can be requested here then he shouldn't have used {not done} template so confidently, and the words "don't know, don't care".
And no, I didn't insult anybody.
Anyways, I closed the discussions. I think there is no point continuing this discussion. I humbly request everybody to cease communication here. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Don't know, don't care was not Winged Blades of Godric—that was Redrose64—who told you pretty much what I said before: we, on Wikipedia, don't ordinarily close regular discussions. Calling them "geniuses" is unhelpful, they were just telling you what any one else would have. Your request is unusual. El_C 01:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- So you decide to close them yourself, really? Why should those threads be frozen? What if someone else wants to continue commenting? You provided no convincing reason for this. Also, you're one of the main participants, it is not objective for you to close those yourself(!). This is starting to become disruptive. El_C 09:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion requested a move to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. It's effectively been mooted a short time ago as the police have confirmed that it was, in fact, a bombing. [2] As this is a very high-profile article at the top of the Main Page news section, could an admin please close the discussion and make the move ASAP? Prioryman (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by SlimVirgin. Thank you for closing the requested move! Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive289#Ban appeal for Paul Bedson (Initiated 2751 days ago on 22 May 2017)? Please review the unblock request at User talk:Paul Bedson. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Protests against Donald Trump/Archive 3#RfC: "multiple/several cities" (Initiated 2794 days ago on 9 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Need uninvolved closer please. (Initiated 2768 days ago on 5 May 2017) --George Ho (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Stockholm attack#Request for comment on whether the dog should be mentioned among casualties/fatalities or not (Initiated 2779 days ago on 24 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jews#RFC:Revised origins section (Initiated 2780 days ago on 23 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jars of Clay (album)#RfC: "Self-titled" (Initiated 2772 days ago on 1 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Medical resources#RfC on placement of Medical condition classification and resources template (Initiated 2770 days ago on 3 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Requesting an uninvolved editor to kindly assess consensus about the draft merge of {{US Presidents}} and {{US Presidential Administrations}}, which strongly overlap each other. (Initiated 2794 days ago on 9 April 2017) This RfC is the continuation of a previous debate held at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Template:US Presidential Administrations (29 January – 3 March), following the process suggested by the closer. Thanks, — JFG talk 15:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with rough consensus for Proposal C. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2785 days ago on 18 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Re-requested closure at WP:AN on assumption that more than one closer may be needed. --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Joint closure authored by myself and Tazerdadog posted with multi-part conclusion. See close for full details. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Cao Bang (1979)#RfC: Number of troops in a division (Initiated 2789 days ago on 14 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure:-I believe the matter is already resolved! Winged Blades Godric 12:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- The reverts in the article history indicate it is not resolved yet. Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ben Shapiro#RFC: Should there be a section about Shapiro's gun control debate with Piers Morgan? If yes, what sources can/should be quoted? (Initiated 2775 days ago on 28 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Winged Blades of Godric. --George Ho (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- This discussion started on April 25, 2017, it was a prior RfC that has since expired. I feel the discussion has run its course and would like an admin to asses the consensus. (Initiated 2778 days ago on 25 April 2017) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Even though I am not an admin, I guess the consensus was simple enough that any other uninvolved editor would have done it as easily. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Yashovardhan Dhanania (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Even though I am not an admin, I guess the consensus was simple enough that any other uninvolved editor would have done it as easily. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. (Initiated 2845 days ago on 17 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at this RfC and perform a close? Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, would someone experienced please close this? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I re-requested a closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, saying that either a solo or teamwork closure may be needed. --George Ho (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Dennis Brown. Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Needs uninvolved closer please. (Initiated 2755 days ago on 18 May 2017) --George Ho (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Mz7 (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? (Initiated 2742 days ago on 31 May 2017) Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Dennis Brown. Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017#RfC rerun: House demolitions (Initiated 2804 days ago on 30 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor kindly assess the outcome of this consensus-building effort on the lead section of a controversial article? (Initiated 2791 days ago on 12 April 2017) — JFG talk 19:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} THE DIAZ talk • contribs 17:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria#RfC: Overall compliance with BLP and neutrality policies (Initiated 2783 days ago on 20 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}--Barring one editor, all supported that it is non-compliant due tocertain issues.Let the rest be discussed naturally on the talk.Winged Blades Godric 13:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genocide#RfC (Initiated 2786 days ago on 17 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} THE DIAZ talk • contribs 14:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abkhazia#Proposal for the Abkhazia Article (Initiated 2795 days ago on 8 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus in favor of the intended proposal. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC on Jeffrey Carr and IISS (Initiated 2786 days ago on 17 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Six-Day War#"In reaction to the mobilisation of Egyptian forces along the Israeli border in the Sinai Peninsula, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes" (Initiated 2781 days ago on 22 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Needs uninvolved closer please. (Initiated 2755 days ago on 18 May 2017) --George Ho (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Mz7 (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved experienced editor assess the outcome of the consensus regarding the entry in the infobox of the article? (Initiated 2766 days ago on 7 May 2017)--Joobo (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2761 days ago on 12 May 2017) This RfC recently expired. We need an editor to weigh the arguments and assess the consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Giraffedata (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2758 days ago on 15 May 2017) Clear consensus to exclude statement entirely has been reached and the RfC has been recently delisted, so I think this can be closed now. Seraphim System (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Your signature is invisible. The main problem is the
font-family:Candara;declaration. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC) - {{Done}}:-Winged Blades Godric 07:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
There has been a discussion for merging Jacen Solo into Solo family for between two and four years, depending on how you count. The discussion has never been closed and consensus is hard to determine, as the page is active, yet most of the votes for in favor of merging. Let's have this settled. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- @DarthBotto: {{notdone}} Per the top of this page, Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here. Just do it. (BTW it was never an RfC, so even if it wasn't four years old with clear consensus, it doesn't belong in the RfCs section here.) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by DarthBotto. Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Needs an uninvolved closer, to assess the consensus. Thanks. (Initiated 2761 days ago on 12 May 2017)--Nevé–selbert 19:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus in favor of double-disambiguation. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2845 days ago on 17 February 2017) Looks like there is consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, time to close this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2797 days ago on 6 April 2017). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Explicit – Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the CfD, Explicit! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
the discussion has not been edited in over a year, and it has been brought up at AN/I that it was not closed. if this might be considered forumshopping, feel free to refuse. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. This might've been considered forum shopping at the time the request was posted, but another month has elapsed since then so it is in the benefit of the editorial process to close it now. Deryck C. 12:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump talk discussion/survey close request
Can an admin please review this discussion and survey on Donald Trump talk here and close it? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Taking a look!Am not even sure this qualifies for a closure.Winged Blades Godric 04:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion is at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 60#Lead is now false. Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. I concur with Winged Blades of Godric above that a formal closure is not necessary, especially since the discussion has now fallen into an archive page. Deryck C. 12:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion is at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 60#Lead is now false. Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2774 days ago on 29 April 2017)* Please disposition the open discussions started in April 2017 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2017/April#Proposals, April 2017. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to be {{done}} Pppery 00:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Very overdue DRV discussion. I think there is a reasonably clear consensus, but I contributed to the discussion and so did many of the other regulars who close DRV discussions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC).
- {{Done}} by Jo-Jo Eumerus.Winged Blades Godric 13:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the DRV, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2732 days ago on 10 June 2017) There's been more than enough talk on this issue, the ongoing discussion is a honeypot for trolls. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Covfefe. I mean, {{done}}. Deryck C. 12:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the DRV, Deryck Chan (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is not to include the suggested word. It would be better if any uninvolved user could close the discussion. Thanks. (Initiated 2759 days ago on 14 May 2017)--Mhhossein talk 13:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive954#User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel (Initiated 2778 days ago on 25 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mass creation of improperly referenced BLPs by User:SwisterTwister (Initiated 2758 days ago on 15 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
not done. Already archived without closure. --George Ho (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)- Wait, it can be edited: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive289#Mass creation of improperly referenced BLPs by User:SwisterTwister. --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the ANI discussion, Salvidrim! (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine#RfC: Proposed split (Initiated 2784 days ago on 19 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as clear consensus in favor of proposed changes. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)#RfC about Al-Masdar (Initiated 2785 days ago on 18 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Plummer v. State/Archive 1#Request for Comment - Internet meme section - 1st revision (Initiated 2783 days ago on 20 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with consensus to include the majority of the proposed text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking for additional closers to collaborate with our volunteer User:Winged Blades of Godric, who's already signed up. Not a close for the fainthearted, I would tend to think.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- A re-request of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Needing more than one to close RfC discussion at WT:V. Also, just in case: (Initiated 2794 days ago on 9 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC); amended, 16:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac::--Willing to collaborate?If yes,feel free to drop a note on my talk!Winged Blades Godric 14:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Would like an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about the photo in the Capture and release of hostages section (Initiated 2770 days ago on 3 May 2017)? Thanks, David.moreno72 09:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as in favor of including the picture of the monument. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Noël Coward#RfC on 1944 controversy (Initiated 2779 days ago on 24 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with consensus against proposed text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antonio Margarito#Request for Comment about Antonio Margarito's nationality (Initiated 2775 days ago on 28 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about the photo in the Capture and release of hostages section (Initiated 2770 days ago on 3 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} duplicate request - see above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Jesus#Press Criticism - Wikipedia's Multiple Parallel Narratives (Initiated 2773 days ago on 30 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus for restructuring. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bill Potts#Request for comment (Initiated 2777 days ago on 26 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Someone please close this RfC on the use of {{sic}} tags in quotations. This should be an easy close, as it asks a simple and concise question and there are 9 responses, almost all of which answer the question at least indirectly, and there is hardly any debate. A closing by an uninvolved party would be very valuable here because the question is relevant to a longstanding conflict. (Initiated 2749 days ago on 24 May 2017)? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved experienced editor assess the outcome of the consensus regarding this RFC? (Initiated 2764 days ago on 9 May 2017) --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}--Complete scarcity of any substantial discussion.Winged Blades Godric 18:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This needs an uninvolved closer. Meanwhile, Wikipedia:Citation underkill was created and then discussed. (Initiated 2733 days ago on 9 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) {{Done}} Snuge purveyor (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Snuge purveyor (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Money.Net#RfC about Money.Net founded and founder data (Initiated 2757 days ago on 16 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}:-The RFC was non-controversial and the initiator did a good job of charting a closing statement!Winged Blades Godric 18:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Goguryeo#Request for comment (Initiated 2766 days ago on 7 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}:-The issue is prob. resolved and it's difficult to summarise such an opinion-based RFC.And it's short!Winged Blades Godric 17:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)#RFC - Funding from US/European governments in the lead (Initiated 2757 days ago on 16 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System#RFC (Initiated 2761 days ago on 12 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kind of Blue#RfC: Description of the recording artist for this album (Initiated 2765 days ago on 8 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement#RfC: Lead (Initiated 2755 days ago on 18 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert Mueller#RfC (Initiated 2754 days ago on 19 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}:-Winged Blades Godric 17:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Policy#Font size (Initiated 2759 days ago on 14 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Giraffedata (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I am requesting early closure of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Placement of expand language templates (Initiated 2725 days ago on 17 June 2017) which has turned into a slanging match. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
{{Done}}- I have undone the close. It should be allowed to run the full 30 days, and should be given a proper close by an administrator. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Er, you didn't. All you did was remove the
{{archive top}}and{{archive bottom}}templates that had been added by FleetCommand (talk · contribs). As far as the RFC system is concerned, it's still closed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC) - @Joefromrandb:While I am refraining from reverting your revertion; please don't reverse closes unilaterally.There were ample valid grounds for a snow close.And WP:AN is the appropriate venue for discussing closure-related problems!Winged Blades Godric 17:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Had an administrator closed it, I would in fact, have opened a discussion. I firmly disagree with "ample grounds for a snow close", and while I've no doubt it was done with the best of intentions, I firmly disagree with a non-administrator responding to a request for administrative action. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm an admin. Should I have closed it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is that rhetorical? You know damn well you shouldn't have closed it. I didn't realize you were an admin. That renders my revert rather pointless. By the numbers it's 12–3. It was my hope that the closing admin would look past that, and actually adjudicate this based on actual arguments, which, if one ignores the handful of baseless votes, seem to be fairly even. One vote from an administrator, however, renders all other votes meaningless, right or wrong, and is, sadly, "ample grounds for a snow close". Joefromrandb (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it was rhetorical. But if I hadn't already !voted, I could probably have closed it in order to stop the escalation which was already in WP:NPA territory. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb:--Whatever is posted at this noticeboard(which is a sub-board of WP:AN) is typically meant for administrators.But that does not exclude any editor from taking an action on the issues; esp. if that could be performed without the use of any tool specifically provided to the sysops.Also, see this RFC.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 08:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- It was clearly a malicious reversion. This reverting person is one of the only two people who disagrees with the others in that discussion. So, he is simply prolonging the inevitable as a last act of defiance before the consensus eventually changes Wikipedia to the way he does not like. I think a closure by an uninvolved editor must never be reversed by an involved editor, at least, not without a round of communication. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 15:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb:--Whatever is posted at this noticeboard(which is a sub-board of WP:AN) is typically meant for administrators.But that does not exclude any editor from taking an action on the issues; esp. if that could be performed without the use of any tool specifically provided to the sysops.Also, see this RFC.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 08:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it was rhetorical. But if I hadn't already !voted, I could probably have closed it in order to stop the escalation which was already in WP:NPA territory. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is that rhetorical? You know damn well you shouldn't have closed it. I didn't realize you were an admin. That renders my revert rather pointless. By the numbers it's 12–3. It was my hope that the closing admin would look past that, and actually adjudicate this based on actual arguments, which, if one ignores the handful of baseless votes, seem to be fairly even. One vote from an administrator, however, renders all other votes meaningless, right or wrong, and is, sadly, "ample grounds for a snow close". Joefromrandb (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm an admin. Should I have closed it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Had an administrator closed it, I would in fact, have opened a discussion. I firmly disagree with "ample grounds for a snow close", and while I've no doubt it was done with the best of intentions, I firmly disagree with a non-administrator responding to a request for administrative action. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Er, you didn't. All you did was remove the
- I have undone the close. It should be allowed to run the full 30 days, and should be given a proper close by an administrator. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
{{done}} As an editor with no prior involvement in the issue, I reviewed the RfC and the related prior discussions ne novo and find that the clear consensus for placement of these templates is at the top of the article. See close for full rationale. While I am confident experienced involved editors are familiar with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I am linking to this for those who may not have recently reviewed it. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2747 days ago on 26 May 2017) Second re-list was seven days ago. Outcome could be keep, redirect or no consensus, but I'm not sure which. Linguist111 15:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the AfD, Ad Orientem (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2729 days ago on 13 June 2017) Closure was reverted on 13 June 2017, so the discussion was subsequently relisted. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Primefac (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2738 days ago on 4 June 2017) Requesting that an experienced editor close the good article reassessment and carry out the consensus, which is unanimous. –Cognissonance (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree; the consensus is unanimous. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 07:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Jo-Jo Eumerus. Snuge purveyor (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Requesting closure and potential action for the template page. North America1000 21:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Fixed link and header for you. (Initiated 2726 days ago on 16 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Reverted change and gave some advice to the template editor concerned. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)