Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 28
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
(Initiated 2043 days ago on 6 April 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: archived without official closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Clarification of WP:3RR --DannyS712 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - Due to its relevance, I recommend formal closure of this thread. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} A specific example of editors disagreeing whether a certain edit counts as a "revert" does not require closing. Both editors who edit-warred were at fault here and it's clear there is no consensus that El C's judgement was incorrect or that the WP:3RR policy needs to be changed. The fact that the discussion died indicates as much. If you wish such a change to happen, propose it in a RFC. Regards SoWhy 16:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2065 days ago on 15 March 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not done - Does not require a formal closure or a formalized reading of consensus. See AN. Users have already been advised the proper way to make a policy proposal should they wish to do so. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - @Swarm:, per WP:BRD, I think we should have an administrator not involved in this discussion make that decision, not you, nor I. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} As an uninvolved admin, I agree with Swarm here. The discussion brought up a number of previously discussed points but regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU. As WP:PAID#Changing this policy is clear that any changes to how we handle paid editing itself "must be conducted in a manner consistent with the standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies", even if there were any consensus to make changes to PAID (which I don't see), it would not be sufficient to actually change the policy. So there is nothing to formally close here which is why I am marking this as not done with the suggestion that those who wish to see a change in policy initiate a RFC as described on WP:PAID and not have such conversations at AN where many editors will not see it. Regards SoWhy 16:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2036 days ago on 12 April 2019) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 15:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Jo-Jo Eumerus - diff. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2023 days ago on 25 April 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Next time, remember that clear cases such as this one should not be listed here per instruction #1. Regards SoWhy 15:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2058 days ago on 22 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:George Pell#Request for comment about coverage of some of the actions of Pell’s barrister? An editor suggested an impartial closer is needed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- This Request for comment was closed by El C. See the diff. Dolphin (t) 13:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} (for the bot) --DannyS712 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2053 days ago on 26 March 2019) This discussion began more than a month ago, and the discussion seems to have died out almost 3 weeks ago, from this date. There appears to be a clear consensus to change the map image in the main infobox on the Israel article to the proposed map image, with some disagreements on including the West Bank (and the Gaza Strip, in some cases). (In any case, I personally prefer not to include the West Bank in any way until the Israeli Government moves to unilaterally annex the region, given the current criteria for the disputed territories to be both claimed and controlled, such as the maps for Russia, China, and Morocco.) Despite the clear consensus for changing the map image, I feel unconformable with closing the discussion myself, given the highly polarized nature of the topic (Israel) and also because I happen to be the person who began the discussion. As such, I would like an uninvolved administrator to bring the discussion to a close. I will not change the map image until after the RfC has been formally closed. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Favonian, Jpgordon, Malik Shabazz, and KrakatoaKatie: Would one of you be willing to formally close this RfC? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I co-wrote WP:ARBINFOBOX2, so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to close an RFC that has something to do with an infobox.Katietalk 23:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, but on top of the fact that I'm a regular contributor to both the article in question and its talk page, I haven't been an administrator for almost four years. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2037 days ago on 12 April 2019) Could an admin please close this? It is a contentious issue.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)- {{done}} by StraussInTheHouse --DannyS712 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Undone by StraussInTheHouse – Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 21:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)- {{not done}} for now - discussion was closed and relisted at Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)#Fresh start: Discussion of multiple titles due to issues with the RM. Given that the discussion has started fresh, it should not be closed at this time. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2061 days ago on 19 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem#Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2055 days ago on 24 March 2019) Can an uninvolved editor evaluate the consensus here and close it? Interstellarity (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Per the note at the top of this page,
Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline.
- formal closure is not needed at this time, given the dearth of discussion. There seems to be no objections to the proposal, with all discussion focusing on tweaks to the design. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2079 days ago on 1 March 2019) Discussion stalled since 16 March. Please would an admin assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2027 days ago on 22 April 2019) Could an experienced editor please relist or review this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 15:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- In which case this counts as {{done}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2023 days ago on 26 April 2019) Could an experienced editor please review this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: {{not done}} there is already a discussion about Floquenbeam's proposed close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed close by Floq; no need for it to be listed here too. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2250 days ago on 11 September 2018) I kindly request the closure of the discussion at page Talk:Ercole III d'Este, Duke of Modena
I have showed that the accuse of Hoax was not true ; I have argued and posted all the necessary proofs including creating a page where all the necessary references are used ; there is also a gallery which demonstrates this. House of Este Orioles
The last person point was dealt; this same person has violated several times the rule to sign.please check. Talk:Ercole III d'Este, Duke of Modena
I would be grateful if you can close the talk page - as the discussion should be closed by now and the evidence should be clear to support this- and remove please the hoax term as it is highly offensive and not true
Thank you for your time
Araldico69 (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}} There is no clear discussion for closure, no is there any consensus on the page for any specific action. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2034 days ago on 14 April 2019) This probably needs an admin who understands mathematics to close. Sandstein 20:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2027 days ago on 21 April 2019) Could an experienced editor please relist or review this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- To editor Jax 0677: shouldn't this be in the Administrative discussions section above? Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 02:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - @Paine Ellsworth:, done. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Clear consensus, ready for closure. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Euryalus (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2081 days ago on 27 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#RfC: Proposal to make TfD more RM-like, as a clearinghouse of template discussions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2057 days ago on 22 March 2019) Would an experienced editor kindly assess, summarize, and formally close the discussions on multiple aspects of edits to the List of Photographers article? There has been some vigorous discussion, but things have died down now. The RfC is structured into multiple sections, so I encourage the closer to address each section individually. Qono (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I closed three subsections and left the subsection Talk:List of photographers#Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article? open for another editor to close. Cunard (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2031 days ago on 17 April 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 April#Chairman? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs). --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2017 days ago on 1 May 2019) Would like an uninvolved admin to review this one and either close or relist. We don't need an admin, this seemed like the most logical noticeboard to post to. Thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Cygnis insignis (talk · contribs). --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2046 days ago on 2 April 2019) Could an admin please close this? Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- To editor BC1278: please specify the exact discussion that you want closed. The link carries us to the top of the archive page. You've called it an RM that was initiated today. Please be more specific. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 17:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- To editor Paine Ellsworth:Amended link in title and removed "rm" from "type." Sorry. Thanks BC1278 (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
This matter was addressed by an admin at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Re-posting_archived_RSN_discussion? and can be withdrawn here. BC1278 (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}} per this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2082 days ago on 25 February 2019) Would an experienced editor please assess whether there is a consensus at Talk:Rent regulation#RfC about describing extent of disagreement and close if so? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 23:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
(Initiated 2073 days ago on 6 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of music considered the worst#RFC for Sgt. Pepper's inclusion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} although someone who knows how may wish to make the "not a ballot" template float left of my lengthy closing statement. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- I removed it, because like the
{{rfc}}template, it's no longer necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- I removed it, because like the
(Initiated 2109 days ago on 29 January 2019) Can an uninvolved editor evaluate the consensus here? In my opinion, I think the consensus is to not implement this proposal. I could be wrong. Interstellarity (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2030 days ago on 19 April 2019) Discussion initiated April 19 in response to {{Merge to}} templates placed in March. Consensus seems clear against the merge proposals. Requesting closure by an uninvolved party per WP:MERGECLOSE. Wikiacc (¶) 02:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2046 days ago on 3 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RFC: What disambiguation should shows from the United States and United Kingdom use?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2072 days ago on 7 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Jackson#Request for comments on restructuring the article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2064 days ago on 15 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome#RfC regarding summary of one theory? An editor suggested here that the RfC should be closed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} although that was entirely a formality. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2029 days ago on 19 April 2019) Discussion stalled since 1 May 2019. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2023 days ago on 25 April 2019) Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2010 days ago on 8 May 2019)
One or more experienced, uninvolved closers would be appreciated at the above when appropriate. The issue is contentious; hence the request here. SarahSV (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- This request is at least 2 days premature. The RM discussion began on May 8, and these typically run one week, and are possibly relisted at the end of that week. I suggest it be ignored for now. -- Netoholic @ 19:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Cuchullain - diff, log entry. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2229 days ago on 2 October 2018) Could any editor assess and formally close this discussion? It may need to be re-listed (not sure how to do this). +mt 01:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Doing... --DannyS712 (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)- @Mwtoews: {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2061 days ago on 19 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC: Change "white supremacist" to "white nationalist"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2056 days ago on 23 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish religious clothing#Request for Comment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 02:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2033 days ago on 15 April 2019) Templates have been merged into a single template as per majority will. Therefore please close the discussion as keep but merge and delete the template documentation pages Template:Infobox premiership/doc and Template:Infobox presidency/doc. Colonestarrice (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Colonestarrice --DannyS712 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2036 days ago on 12 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2044 days ago on 5 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:And Then There Were None#RfC: And Then There Were None and racial language? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2043 days ago on 6 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Request for comments on the 'political position' parameter of the political party infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2039 days ago on 10 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Romania#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2036 days ago on 12 April 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: HispanTV? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 17:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2035 days ago on 14 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Is RfX a vote, or a consensus discussion? (RfC)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2031 days ago on 17 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus and close this RfC? A request for comment was conducted on this discussion and has been recently discontinued. Thanks Mitchumch (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2032 days ago on 17 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:WikiLeaks#RFC: Murder Of Seth Rich content dispute? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2024 days ago on 24 April 2019) Can someone please close this RfC? It has become dormant. Thank you. Dr. K. 02:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2058 days ago on 22 March 2019) Would an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. TompaDompa (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}} According to QEDK,
after restoring; there is a contesting vote; let it stay open until it goes stale
. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)- In case it's a bit difficult to understand, I meant that there is an opposing vote on the RfC after it was restored, if the discussion goes stale again, feel free to file an ANRFC request. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2032 days ago on 16 April 2019) Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2013 days ago on 5 May 2019) Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Jo-Jo Eumerus (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2013 days ago on 5 May 2019) Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Jo-Jo Eumerus (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2051 days ago on 29 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#RfC on categorizing all works by an artist by genre? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - Artists should not routinely be characterized by genre. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2046 days ago on 2 April 2019) Relisted 11 April 2019. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2045 days ago on 4 April 2019) Relisted 11 April 2019. Discussion stalled since 8 May 2019. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2034 days ago on 14 April 2019) Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - jc37 22:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2025 days ago on 23 April 2019) Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2038 days ago on 10 April 2019) Discussion has died out. Frietjes (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2036 days ago on 12 April 2019) Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2028 days ago on 21 April 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Dexerto? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 09:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... - didn't quite have enough time to finish now but am along the way in closing this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2035 days ago on 13 April 2019) Discussion stalled since 9 May 2019. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Jo-Jo Eumerus (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2053 days ago on 26 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war#RfC: Should the three articles have a common prefix?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2058 days ago on 21 March 2019) Relisted on 5 April 2019. Frietjes (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2048 days ago on 31 March 2019) Relisted on 7 April 2019. Frietjes (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Relisted. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2048 days ago on 31 March 2019) Relisted on 7 April 2019. Frietjes (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{already done}} Relisted by Pkbwcgs. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2040 days ago on 8 April 2019) Discussion has died out. Frietjes (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2040 days ago on 8 April 2019) Discussion has died out. Frietjes (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2039 days ago on 9 April 2019) Discussion has died out. Frietjes (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{already done}} Relisted by DannyS712. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2035 days ago on 13 April 2019) Discussion has died out. Frietjes (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{already done}} Relisted by Jo-Jo Eumerus * Pppery * it has begun... 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2032 days ago on 16 April 2019) Been open for nearly a month, despite lack of opposition. * Pppery * survives 01:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2026 days ago on 23 April 2019) Discussion stalled since 27 April 2019. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2054 days ago on 26 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Order of the Arrow#Request for comment regarding Keene? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just my .02 after reading this over but it seems counter productive to have two related discussions about sourcing of the same idea going on with different timelines. A single reformed discussion to try and achieve a policy compliant whole might be more useful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2089 days ago on 18 February 2019) Relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2038 days ago on 10 April 2019) Discussion has died out. Frietjes (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2015 days ago on 4 May 2019) Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here.
- This is close and is likely to be controversial. A Relist may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Go Phightins!. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2017 days ago on 1 May 2019) Would an administrator assess the weight of the arguments in this discussion and please close it? It has been open since May 1. Was relisted by StraussInTheHouse on May 9 and again on May 16. It was closed once by StraussInTheHouse before being reopened. It has already been open for far longer than move requests should be open for, and a couple of editors are trying to keep it open for even longer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Flyer22 Reborn, thanks for the ping. I was keeping an eye on the discussion as an uninvolved editor to look into closing it but per User talk:StraussInTheHouse#Ping ping I'm going to abstain from re-closing this particular discussion because I lost track of the discussion due to having to attend to pressing real life issues, so I'm hoping another uninvolved user / page mover / administrator has been keeping an eye on it. Whoever closes it, if they see fit, is free to use parts of my previous closing rationale if it still applies; but as the discussion has evolved so much since I last visited it, I don't feel it would be appropriate of me to close it. Kind regards, SITH (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- StraussInTheHouse, did one of the relistings interfere with something? Or maybe SMcCandlish knows? I ask because I've never seen a move request take this long to close. Yeah, you listed it a second time, but that was on May 16. Maybe the way the move request is set up, with all of those sections and all of that data, and the WP:NOUN aspect, is too much for some or most editors to want to deal with/assess? I do think that the move request has run its course and that there is nothing else for either side to state that wouldn't be redundant. I feel that it being left open like this is only going to result in more non-policy based votes (especially from newbies), like this recent one, which led to this "not a vote" tag being added. No need to ping me to this section if either of you reply here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Flyer22 Reborn <noping used per request>, I don't think the relist interfered with anything in terms of bot considerations (I've seen that happen before but it's usually due to super-long rationales or modification of signatures in the nomination. My point was that I was shepherding the discussion through the process with the intention of closing it, as I was uninvolved, however, as I lost track due to a short wikibreak, I don't think I'm the best-placed person to close it. However, I, and I am sure those on both sides of the debate, will echo the call for an experienced closer, be it an administrator, page mover, or user; because the strength of arguments does factor into the determination of consensus which is why a head count can be misleading when !votes are insubstantial. If nobody's got round to closing it in a couple of days, I'd be more than happy to set aside a couple of hours to read all the discussion that I've missed and implement a fresh closure, but hopefully there's somebody who has been following it more closely who won't have to do that. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- StraussInTheHouse, did one of the relistings interfere with something? Or maybe SMcCandlish knows? I ask because I've never seen a move request take this long to close. Yeah, you listed it a second time, but that was on May 16. Maybe the way the move request is set up, with all of those sections and all of that data, and the WP:NOUN aspect, is too much for some or most editors to want to deal with/assess? I do think that the move request has run its course and that there is nothing else for either side to state that wouldn't be redundant. I feel that it being left open like this is only going to result in more non-policy based votes (especially from newbies), like this recent one, which led to this "not a vote" tag being added. No need to ping me to this section if either of you reply here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
{{done}} – closed by bd2412. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 09:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2078 days ago on 1 March 2019) Already relisted three times. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2065 days ago on 14 March 2019) Already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2008 days ago on 10 May 2019) – Would an administrator assess this issue and take necessary action please. Ythlev (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}} official closure not needed, discussion is stale and has been archived. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2033 days ago on 15 April 2019) Discussion stalled since 7 May 2019. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Discussion has resumed. Needs either a close or a formal Relist and attention to the need for a close in one more week. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by MJL - diff --DannyS712 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2021 days ago on 27 April 2019) Already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2012 days ago on 7 May 2019) Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Xaosflux on 28 May 2019. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2008 days ago on 10 May 2019) I have previously relisted the discussion due to canvassing, and not much has changed. An uninvolved admin is needed here. Thank you. InvalidOS (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Fayenatic london - diff --DannyS712 (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2026 days ago on 23 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rigel#RfC: Inclusion Three Possible Statements under 'Physical characteristics'? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2010 days ago on 8 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor evaluate the consensus in the discussion linked above? Interstellarity (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Is anyone available to close this? I have waited over a week and no one has responded. Interstellarity T 🌟 20:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2024 days ago on 25 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1948 United States presidential election#RfC (Request for Comment): Should Henry Wallace be included at top?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2017 days ago on 2 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bruno Bettelheim#RfC: how to cover someone who doesn't have credentials for their field?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1998 days ago on 20 May 2019) Will an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2057 days ago on 22 March 2019) Already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Plastikspork -- the wub "?!" 23:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2041 days ago on 7 April 2019) Already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Primefac -- the wub "?!" 23:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2027 days ago on 21 April 2019) Already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Primefac -- the wub "?!" 23:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2003 days ago on 15 May 2019) Discussion has stagnated. Frietjes (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Primefac -- the wub "?!" 23:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2062 days ago on 18 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours#Genre Colors RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2029 days ago on 20 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fascism in Europe/Archive 1#Should the Estado Novo regime in Portugal be considered a Fascist regime?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
{{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 00:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2018 days ago on 1 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of suicide crisis lines#RfC on List of suicide crisis lines, Not a directory, WP:LSC and Ignore all rules? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2036 days ago on 12 April 2019) Please will an admin assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- This may be a train wreck. The closer may need either to tease apart the consensus on each portal or to send the thing back to Square One. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 18#Portal:Queen (nominated 12 April) depends in part on the outcome of this MfD, so the closing admin should note the closure in the RfD and/or close the RfD if appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- The Queen RfD has been closed with the consent of the admin who put it on hold. The MfD still needs admin attention. --kingboyk (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Relisted by Jo-Jo Eumerus. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- re-added here because the relisting was over 8 days ago. Please can someone just close this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} I'm not an admin but no admin actions were required for the determination of consensus, lack thereof or even the ability to do so due to the structure of the discussion. SITH (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2033 days ago on 15 April 2019) Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Discussion on this MFD has resumed. A Relist may be appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Xaosflux - Special:Diff/900788254 --DannyS712 (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2012 days ago on 6 May 2019) Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Xaosflux. SITH (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2015 days ago on 3 May 2019) The RfC tag for this was removed by a bot as the time elapsed. Could someone look at this and close it or extend the time for discussion by re-adding a tag? I do not know how to do that. If this is not the correct forum for this comment, please forgive me. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2045 days ago on 3 April 2019) Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, the close required no administrative action. InvalidOS (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1986 days ago on 1 June 2019) Uninvolved admin needed for this one. Calidum 05:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, non-admin closure. InvalidOS (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2070 days ago on 10 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian law#RfC on the notability of judges on provincial trial courts? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Since this RfC is attempting to modify an SNG and so it should have been held at WP:BIO and probably given a CENT notice. 6 people just isn't enough of a consensus - which I don't think exists - to change something like this. I don't think as a NAC it's my place to make this kind of close but it would be my strong feeling on the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --RL0919 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2027 days ago on 22 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Solomon's Pools#Request for Comment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --RL0919 (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2027 days ago on 22 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Request for Comment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2024 days ago on 25 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of the Mesozoic life of Wyoming#RfC image display format? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --RL0919 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2024 days ago on 25 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics#RfC on Templates? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2020 days ago on 29 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anti-German sentiment/Archive 2#RfC: Rota? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2010 days ago on 8 May 2019) Would somebody please close this RfC? Any help is appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1983 days ago on 4 June 2019) - we've had ~25 editors weighing in and 6 proposals so far. I weighed in, but don't think there's any consensus in each of the 6 proposals regarding action against Hijiri88 or Lubbad85. There are some boomerang votes in proposal 5 though. starship.paint (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2007 days ago on 11 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Facebook#RfC on inclusion on HuffPo source's claims? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2006 days ago on 12 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor evaluate the consensus in the discussion linked above? Interstellarity (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
On hold. This is an RFC and it's not been a month yet. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Primefac: How about now? Interstellarity T 🌟 21:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Um... 28 days is not a month? Primefac (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Primefac. Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Um... 28 days is not a month? Primefac (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Primefac: How about now? Interstellarity T 🌟 21:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2036 days ago on 12 April 2019) Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. -- Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- This appears to be a train wreck. An attempt to send the train back to Square One failed due to involvement. It still either needs to be started over or teased apart. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by JJMC89 - Special:Diff/902174649 --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2015 days ago on 4 May 2019) Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here.
- This is close and is likely to be controversial. A Relist may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Relisted 8 days, but still open. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2028 days ago on 21 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 20#RfC: Should the following quote be added: "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything."? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, not that I apparently needed to, since the part of the article that triggered the discussion has since been removed. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2005 days ago on 14 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Santa Claus#About Santa Claus? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2015 days ago on 4 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#British organisations and publications? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}, Tvx1 23:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2044 days ago on 4 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment: This is a complicated close, there is VOTESTACKING involved, as well as multiple options, closing editor maybe willing to close it along with another administrator. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
{{Done}} Cinderella157 (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Cinderella157: Having read your summary, I find myself unsure what your finding is. What does "embrace our differences in a more formal way" even mean? And is your closing rationale an actual finding of consensus, or your opinion as to what editors seemed to lean toward supporting most, but will require another RfC to action? Please clarify both of these things. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2004 days ago on 15 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:William Barr#RfC: Expand lede beyond one short paragraph? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2002 days ago on 17 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RFC about order of paragraphs in lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2032 days ago on 16 April 2019) Discussion stalled since 7 May 2019. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} First post here in awhile, but this has been around for more than a month, so I'm closed this. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2024 days ago on 25 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republican Party (United States)#RfC: Justification for blocking of Merrick Garland? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2014 days ago on 4 May 2019) It's nearing a month, and it would be good to have a close on this rather than it being archived unclosed. The discussion has died down, so closing it a little early wouldn't be a problem. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Removing locally-defined links to Commons categories if they match the Wikidata sitelinks? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2013 days ago on 6 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MS-13#RfC: MS-13 lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2003 days ago on 16 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brexit#RfC: Study on impact on financial sector? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2001 days ago on 18 May 2019) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Game of Thrones title sequence#Table RfC? Thanks. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1994 days ago on 25 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: oldest and wealthiest? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- On hold it hasn't been a month yet --DannyS712 (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2060 days ago on 19 March 2019) already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by someone else --slakr\ talk / 23:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2060 days ago on 19 March 2019) already relisted three times. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by someone else --slakr\ talk / 23:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2039 days ago on 9 April 2019) already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by someone else --slakr\ talk / 23:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2031 days ago on 17 April 2019) already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by someone else --slakr\ talk / 23:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2386 days ago on 27 April 2018) Could an experienced editor please assess the status of a long-standing merge proposal between Racial policy of Nazi Germany and Nazism and race with several views, and in which discussion has been quiet for more than 4 months. Klbrain (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1990 days ago on 28 May 2019) I am asking if a non-involved admin can close this move request. It has been up longer than the allotted time of 7 days (going on 10 now) and there is no consensus to move it. No need for it to be open any longer as it is becoming a train wreck. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Closed by Newslinger talk at 03:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 14:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2013 days ago on 6 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Juan Guaidó#RfC on infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2017 days ago on 1 May 2019) Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- This may be a train wreck. The closer may need to decide whether to tease apart the nominations and close them or to send this back to Square One. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Input to this MFD is continuing. A formal Relist may be in order, confirming that the MFD has been relisted by remaining open. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Premeditated Chaos - Special:Diff/903640820 --DannyS712 (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2004 days ago on 14 May 2019) already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2003 days ago on 16 May 2019) already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Primefac - Special:Diff/903411150 --DannyS712 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1994 days ago on 24 May 2019) already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1993 days ago on 25 May 2019) already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1983 days ago on 5 June 2019). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1991 days ago on 28 May 2019) It has been a solid week since the last meaningful input to the discussion, and at this point, it is quite clear that there is no consensus for supporting the proposed page moves (not to mention that the proposed titles are blatant violations of English grammar rules for simple titles). I find it unlikely that the discussion will generate any more valid input; it seems that the discussion has reached a point where mudslinging is becoming more likely. Requesting an uninvolved admin to close this discussion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Hurricanehink, Favonian, and KrakatoaKatie: You mind closing this one? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Closed by Steel1943 (talk) at 18:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 18:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2029 days ago on 19 April 2019) Discussion stalled since 626 May 2019. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Either a Relist or a No Consensus is probably in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by xaosflux. Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1988 days ago on 30 May 2019) already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Closed by Primefac (talk) at 02:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC). Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 11:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1985 days ago on 2 June 2019) already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1992 days ago on 26 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iran#RfC: Is this paragraph sourced and neutral in the lead?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2000 days ago on 18 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John R. Bolton#RfC: Bolton being a "war hawk"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1966 days ago on 21 June 2019) Nominator failed to list this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, so I suspect it might not get closed except by request. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by The Earwig. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2100 days ago on 8 February 2019) No one really participated in the merge discussion. Someone had made off-topic comment, but the user Tony85poon, had been blocked for socking. Could an uninvolved editor please close this merge discussion. Matthew hk (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2016 days ago on 3 May 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please close these proposals? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by other editors. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1978 days ago on 10 June 2019) Could an uninvolved admin please review this discussion for closure? Merging Tal's Hill into Minute Maid Park has been proposed twice now in the past 8 months, and both times only one editor has opposed the merger (the same editor both times). The second discussion was listed on WikiProject Houston and WikiProject Baseball to attract more interest, and has now been open for 14 days. 73.32.38.72 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1964 days ago on 24 June 2019) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion for closure? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2021 days ago on 28 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 151#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1988 days ago on 30 May 2019) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2014 days ago on 5 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RFC about the death tolls in the lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1993 days ago on 25 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: False statements? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2011 days ago on 8 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC: political scandal?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1989 days ago on 30 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: LifeSiteNews? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 05:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1987 days ago on 31 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:George Washington#RfC: Cooper's abolitionist tract? Thanks. Factotem (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1986 days ago on 1 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: MintPress News? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1980 days ago on 7 June 2019) Would an uninvolved and experienced editor please assess the consensus at List inclusion criteria for List of most visited art museums? The discussion is expanded in other sections before and after the section for the formal RfC, and the closing editor is encouraged to evaluate these additional relevant discussions. Thank you. Qono (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2046 days ago on 2 April 2019) Would an uninvolved closer please assess the merge consensus here. There are also some relevant comments at Talk:Kenmont Primary School#Notability.Klbrain (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1988 days ago on 31 May 2019) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Closed by Dicklyon (talk) at 06:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC). Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 18:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1958 days ago on 29 June 2019) No new editors have joined the discussion in several days Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Closed by ~Swarm~ at 06:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 18:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2056 days ago on 24 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles#Naming administrative divisions of China within articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1981 days ago on 6 June 2019) Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: is "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?" an RS?? Please keep in mind the active arbitration case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 09:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1980 days ago on 8 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#RfC: Apollo 11? Thank you! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1979 days ago on 8 June 2019) This subject has proved controversial, and with a high editor participation a neutral, experienced editor is required to assess and provide the close. It would be preferable if it was closed by someone not connected with the trains wikiproject or a regular trains editor as that could be perceived as non-neutral. SpinningSpark 23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1999 days ago on 20 May 2019) Wikipedia:Requested moves currently has a backlog that goes back about three weeks. Assistance to reduce the amount of entries in the backlog is appreciated. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Resolved mark}}. No longer backlogged. — Newslinger talk 23:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1979 days ago on 9 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced template editor please assess the consensus at Template talk:London Gazette/Archive 1#Requested move 9 June 2019? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 01:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1977 days ago on 10 June 2019) Would an experienced editor please assess consensus here? Thank you! ―Mandruss ☎ 01:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1986 days ago on 1 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor with the page mover and template editor permissions please assess the consensus at Template talk:Dts#Requested move 1 June 2019? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 01:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1996 days ago on 22 May 2019) already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1989 days ago on 29 May 2019) already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1978 days ago on 10 June 2019) These transclude to an article in is on the main page right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} I just did this myself. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1976 days ago on 11 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Presidency of Donald Trump? Thank you!--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1989 days ago on 29 May 2019) Please close Ladsgroupoverleg 23:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2042 days ago on 7 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#RfC: Tulsi Gabbard's views on foreign policy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Another problematic close (Cf. noticeboard record) from @Red Slash:. Zzuzz removed Red Slash's page mover rights recently. Could benefit from more neutral eyes than mine. Best, 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Red Slash - any disagreement with the close should be taken up with the closer or otherwise challenged per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. --DannyS712 (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 3072 days ago on 10 June 2016) Would an uninvolved user please close this discussion? I know it's an old discussion, but a user keeps insisting that nothing valid came from it and keeps edit warring against any edit based on that discussion. Therefore I believe it would be immensely helpful if this discussion were properly closed and thus consensus assessed, so that we know what is the best step to take next (e.g. more discussion).Tvx1 10:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
This is not a forum for discussion
|
|---|
File:Bhutan FA.png was removed from Bhutan Football Federation by an administrator per Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png. It has been re-added to the article on numerous occasions since that close and removed each time (not only by me) for reasons based on that discussion or for other WP:NFCCP reasons. Recently some IPs have been re-adding the file and it has continued to be removed (again not by only me). It was last removed by an administrator (who also participated in the WT:NFCC discussion you asking to be closed) when he protected the page. At present, the NFCR discussion (a community noticeboard) which led to the file being removed still is, in my opinion, in effect and the use of the file is still considered to be a clear NFCCP violation; so, removing it isn't edit warring (see WP:3RRNO); moreover, the WT:NFCC discussion you're referencing was a broader discussion related to the application of the WP:NFCC to this type of non-free use, not a discussion of any one particular file's non-free use. There have been similar discussions about this particular part of the NFCC over the years as well, and these can also be found in the WT:NFCC archives. in addition, I never insisted that nothing valid came from the WT:NFCC discussion at all so you got that wrong too just you got it wrong when you accused me of being POINTY (WP:POINT#Important note is not being POINTY); there was some progress made in moving towards a consensus in the latest discussion, but where we disagree is that I don't think a formal consensus was established to go back and undo not only the NFCR for this particular file but also the many other files which have been discussed at NFCR and FFD over the years and closed by different administrators basically the same way and have been continued to be closed the same way even after the discussion you're asking to be closed.I also don't get why you've waited three years to suddenly start claiming this is now the consensus and why you've decided that this particular file was the focus of that consensus. As I previously posted, if you feel the NFCR for this particular file should be re-considered, the you should follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; on the other hand, if you want to re-open the above-mentioned archived discussion or start an RFC, then you can do that at WT:NFCC. The {{Non-free reviewed}} template at the top of File:Bhutan FA.png clearly suggests that further discussion may be needed at FFD for other uses of the file, but you've not tried to seek out a consensus or at least a reaffirmation of what you perceive to be a consensus via FFD. FFD is a community noticeboard and a new consensus established there would most likely be enough to supersede the older NFCR one. If you want to do that, then it would at least be courteous to give the admin who closed the NFCR discussion first a heads up and see what they have to say, which is also something you've not tried doing. Finally, one thing about this matter though is that this involves a change in the way a pretty major Wikipedia policy has been interpreted and applied to quite a number of files over the years by various administrators; so, I think it would be best for any new consensus to be something established via a well participated and publicized RFC because it will likely affect the way lots of non-free files (not only soccer team logos) can be used in lots of articles. The WT:NFCC discussion being referenced here is possibly something good to build upon, but I think a much stronger consensus should be established for something like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
|
- You want to collapse the above then fine; however, please strike the false accusations (
a user keeps insisting that nothing valid came from it and keeps edit warring against any edit based on that discussion.
) that you made against me in your original request then. This is certainly not the right place discuss such things or make such accusations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)- Nominator has been indeffed by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- And now he's unblocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Don't know how that would have affected anything. The request still stands.Tvx1 11:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} This is a 3-year old discussion, with no real proposal to amend the relevant policies (WP:NFC/WP:NFCC). There's nothing wrong with suggesting changes, but this should be accomplished via a formal, advertised WP:RFC -FASTILY 22:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2053 days ago on 27 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Order of the Arrow#Request for comment regarding Deloria? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2027 days ago on 22 April 2019) Please will an admin assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- This may be a train wreck. The closer may need to decide whether to close each of the nominations separately or to send this back to square one. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by MER-C - Special:Diff/906942563 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1949 days ago on 8 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at SNC-Lavalin affair? Thank you!--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion of quick closure
|
|---|
|
- Note - Littleolive oil whom opened this RfC has removed the template and closed it. A formal closure from an uninvolved editor may no longer be required.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Safrolic has also archived the RfC discussion. So again a formal close from an uninvolved editor may be unnecessary.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Extended discussion
|
|---|
|
(Initiated 2010 days ago on 9 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Juul#Pronunciation in the lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - Discussion now closed. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1984 days ago on 3 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:William Happer#RfC: Comparing demonization of CO2 with "Jews under Hitler"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, discussion closed. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 17:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2599 days ago on 26 September 2017) Could an uninvolved editor please close this discussion regarding the material removed in this edit?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Bizarre this was still open - really after 2 years I'd normally just acknowledge the discussion naturally died out, nevertheless {{done}}. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 17:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2023 days ago on 26 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Richat Structure#RfC about mentioning Fringe Theory? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2009 days ago on 10 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflight? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1971 days ago on 16 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Audi Q3? Thanks, --Vauxford (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1966 days ago on 21 June 2019) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1962 days ago on 25 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Infobox#RfC on undue weight? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1979 days ago on 8 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jimmy Dore#RfC: "a far-left show known for promoting conspiracy theories"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2029 days ago on 19 April 2019) Discussion stalled since 5 May 2019. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Discussion has resumed. Needs either a close or a formal Relist and attention to the need for a close in one more week. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{already done}} This discussion was closed by Scottywong yesterday. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1963 days ago on 25 June 2019) Discussion ended on 4 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Discussion was closed yesterday. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1962 days ago on 25 June 2019) Discussion ended on 4 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Discussion was closed yesterday. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1962 days ago on 25 June 2019) Discussion (some of which was uncivil) ended on 8 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Was done, template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1962 days ago on 25 June 2019) Discussion ended on 4 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Was done, template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1960 days ago on 28 June 2019) Discussion ended on 9 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Was done, template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1960 days ago on 28 June 2019) Discussion ended on 11 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Was done, template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1955 days ago on 3 July 2019) Discussion is continuing (and is rather animated). A Relist may be better than a close, but will an administrator please assess the consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Was done, template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1949 days ago on 8 July 2019) Discussion is continuing, and is sometimes uncivil. Either a Relist or a close is in order. Will an administrator please assess the consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Was done, template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1954 days ago on 4 July 2019) Arguably the consensus is clear enough for it to not require closure by a third-party but given that the topic has been discussed previously (see links in opening statement) without finality being reached, it would be good to have formal closure. Abecedare (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Winged Blades of Godric. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2015 days ago on 4 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Polyphenol#Are "polyphenols" polymers of phenol?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2002 days ago on 17 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games#RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1979 days ago on 8 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Marriage#Separation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1965 days ago on 22 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Recusancy#RfC: Database of names in article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Amakuru (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1961 days ago on 26 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#Jeanne Calment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Amakuru (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1960 days ago on 27 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Guardian#RfC on "Political alignment" infobox parameter? Endymion.12 (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} this has been closed now, by JFG. — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1944 days ago on 13 July 2019) It has been over seven days, and though the consensus seems clear, I am concerned about this comment by Herostratus that suggests the consensus might be ignored, especially given the sensitivity of the topic. Requesting formal closure and addressing of that question by an uninvolved admin. (Also pinging Amakuru, the RfC initiator, and Adam Cuerden, who created the PoTD template under discussion.) Funcrunch (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Funcrunch: RfCs are normally publicised for thirty days, this one is still attracting comment. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Compassionate727 - See Talk:Main Page/Archive 194#Survey (intersex person image) --DannyS712 (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1956 days ago on 2 July 2019) Would an experienced, uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of concentration and internment camps#RFC about U.S.-Mexico border camps? Thank you. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1997 days ago on 22 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chuck Tingle#Request for comments about keeping/editing/deleting list of self-published works? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
{{done}} — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1952 days ago on 5 July 2019)
- This appears snow but a formal close would be helpful. -- GreenC 13:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2107 days ago on 31 January 2019) Could an experienced editor review this article? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2078 days ago on 1 March 2019) Could an experienced editor review Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Proposed_split? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2037 days ago on 12 April 2019) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1944 days ago on 14 July 2019) Please take a look and close this RFC on a political spectrum diagram. It looks like an easy no and the last post in the discussion was July 31. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1949 days ago on 8 July 2019) A RfC on Talk:Neolithic Subpluvial has just expired. It seems like a consensus for merge or redirect to me but as I supported the motion and filed the RfC I'd like to ask someone else to formally close it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1997 days ago on 21 May 2019) open since May 21, no new comments since June 1 — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Relisted - there was a flurry of new comments after this notice appeared, as well as a companion list created and nominated for deletion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by MER-C. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2451 days ago on 21 February 2018) Please review Talk:Kendrick Lamar discography#Split --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Um, why does an almost a year old discussion require a formal close? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1999 days ago on 20 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Axios (website)#RfC: Paid Wikipedia editing? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 05:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2070 days ago on 10 March 2019) Could an experienced editor please assess and formslly close this discussion? It has been raised on multiple talk pages and wound up at DRN, where an admin negotiated an RfC. The 30 day period for an RfC has expired (the discussion naturally died out two weeks beforehand), but an editors are interpreting the discussion differently. The RfC really needs a third party to summarise it, please. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- comment IMO this discussion is not finished. Yes, there was a 30day period of silence, but it continues now. So I'd say don't close it yet. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: the discussion had run its course and naturally died out after two weeks. You only objected when I moved to implement changes to articles based on the RfC discussion. By your own admission (in the RfC itself no less), you had forgotten about the discussion, so you cannot claim it is ongoing. To do so makes it look like you are stalling to prevent the consensus from being reached, especially given the way you have misrepresented the discussion (by claiming no support for a proposal when at least three editors had supported it) and have tried to draw on the opinions of editors from old discussions outside the RfC to support your position. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- On hold @Mclarenfan17 and Pelmeen10: The discussion is still ongoing with the latest comment made earlier today. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: — could I please ask that the RfC be closed with the provision for a new one to be opened? There have been some complaints that the RfC was "not done properly" and some recent comments appear to be trying to subvert the RfC process. In particular, there is a claim that a second consensus is needed: one to agree to a new table format and one to agree that the new format is needed. This appears to be moving the goalposts as theoretically editors could agree to a new format, but if they do not specifically state that they think the new format is needed, then those opposed to change could claim that there is no consensus at all and try to block the change even if they are in an absolute minority. The whole discussion has become a mess, with those opposed to change redirecting the conversation to the RfC process rather than discuss the RfC content as a way of dragging the conversation out and forcing a WP:NOCONSENSUS. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1957 days ago on 1 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 3#RFC on Venezuela? Thank you. Oska (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Can an administrator close this RFC? It has been going for a month. Thank you. GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{DONE}} Chetsford (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2022 days ago on 26 April 2019) Would an administrator assess the consensus at Talk:Richard B. Spencer#RfC: Neo-Nazi label? THE DIAZ userpage • talk • contribs 22:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2011 days ago on 7 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frankfurt School#RfC: Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section - possible split? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2009 days ago on 9 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lady Louise Windsor#RfC about the infobox used in this article and other similar articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2011 days ago on 7 May 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1910 days ago on 16 August 2019) Would an experienced editor consider this for a WP:SNOW close? I'm normally reticent to request an AfD be closed prior to running a full, seven days, however, in this case it's holding up a DYK nomination which can't proceed while this is open. Chetsford (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Andrew Davidson. Cunard (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1922 days ago on 5 August 2019) Could an experienced editor please review the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2039 days ago on 10 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States#RFC: Unsplit? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2005 days ago on 14 May 2019) Would an administrator evaluate the consensus in the discussion linked above? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1979 days ago on 8 June 2019) This subject has proved controversial, and with a high editor participation a neutral, experienced editor is required to assess and provide the close. It would be preferable if it was closed by someone not connected with the trains wikiproject or a regular trains editor as that could be perceived as non-neutral. SpinningSpark 23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, finally. Was an extensive read. Note: I'm not vehemently opposed if a sysop reads my close and wants to close it themselves, but this one's been inactive for more than a month, and it seems no one else was coming along to do so. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 07:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1951 days ago on 6 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Post-classical history#Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2058 days ago on 22 March 2019) Would an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. TompaDompa (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1993 days ago on 25 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites#RfC: Is a paragraph about a single incident involving fewer than a dozen Israelites WP:UNDUE?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1940 days ago on 18 July 2019) Would an uninvolved and experienced editor kindly assess the consensus? — JFG talk 21:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2001 days ago on 17 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Placement of addiction, dependence and withdrawal? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1991 days ago on 28 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:5G#RfC: Russian disinformation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1989 days ago on 29 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fabiana Rosales#RfC on Juan Guaido's wife? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- On hold, I'd like a second opinion on the conclusions that I came to while I attempting to close this discussion, which I have posted below. I'm putting it inside a collapse template in case anyone wants to take a fresh look at the RfC before reading my rationale. signed, Rosguill talk 23:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Weak consensus for D with no prejudice against reopening discussion. This was a difficult RfC to evaluate due to a variety of factors. A raw vote count is 3 for A, 4 for B, 5 for C and 5 for D, with a fair amount of overlap between A, C, and D voters. Additionally, D was the only option to gain support from both A/C and B voters (albeit only one such B voter, and a weak vote at that). Two of the votes for B are supported by very weak arguments(a plain ILIKEIT, and the bald assertion that B shows "both points of view" despite others' arguments to the contrary). Discounting these votes would change the count to be 3 v 2 v 5 v 5. The argument made by an A/C voter that B's sources do not mention Rosales appears to be addressed by the introduction of a different source; however, the argument that A and C are supported by sources stands. Ordinarily I think that this would too close to call, but the matter is further complicated by edits made by Saranoon on July 1st to add an option D, replace the wording in the lead with D, and move the former-status-quo B-wording to the article body. The fact that this change has been essentially uncontested by editors working on the article, in addition to D being the only option which has received support from A/C and B voters, leads me to conclude that there is a narrow consensus for D as a compromise over the other options. However, it's also possible that some participants in the discussion were unaware of these changes, which would undermine any consensus for which they may otherwise be evidence, so I want to clarify that any participant may reopen this discussion if they object to Saranoon's changes.
|
@Rosguill: I read through the discussion, and support your conclusion. Options A and B were both less popular numerically, and also seemed to have policy issues: e.g. coatracking and not being NPOV. That realistically only left options C and D. Option D was added an entire month after the discussion was started however, which meant that earlier participants may not have seen option D. Despite being added a month late, D still tied with C for support. I think that its fair to say there is weak consensus for D. I think your reasoning for vote overlap was clever (I didn't even think of that the first time I read the RfC!), and will reinforce the legitimacy of the close. I question leaving room for anyone to re-open the RfC as possibly leading to disruption, but agree that it should be easy enough to reopen given the weak consensus. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and the words of support. This is now {{Done}}. signed, Rosguill talk 00:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1962 days ago on 26 June 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
{{Done}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 20:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1951 days ago on 7 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#RfC: using "The" in song/album article titles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1920 days ago on 6 August 2019) Need an admin to review and close. Atsme Talk 📧 15:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1914 days ago on 13 August 2019) Please close this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2142 days ago on 27 December 2018) I wasn't going to put this up for a formal close, but it was asked for back in June 2019 and now a new user has added to the survey, 7 months after it was initiated. Please close this. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2001 days ago on 18 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 72#Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment? Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- This is huge topic affecting literally all of Wikipedia, and I think more time is needed. I've been a Wikipedia editor a dozen years, and I've only just run across this RfC. There's no deadline, and I'm not sure what it would hurt to let it run longer to give more editors a chance to weigh in on something so momentous. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Since it's been close to an additional month, I'll take a look at this and the related PMC discussion below in a few days if no one else beats me to it. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Steven Crossin: Is this still on your radar? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, honestly I thought someone else would do it. Hasn't happened. I've got an exam Friday, so I'll close this Saturday if it's still open by then. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 05:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, finally. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 15:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, honestly I thought someone else would do it. Hasn't happened. I've got an exam Friday, so I'll close this Saturday if it's still open by then. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 05:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Steven Crossin: Is this still on your radar? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Since it's been close to an additional month, I'll take a look at this and the related PMC discussion below in a few days if no one else beats me to it. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
DRV backlog
(Initiated 1915 days ago on 12 August 2019) Could somebody take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 12. There's a number of discussions there which are overdue to be closed, but involved so many of the DRV regulars, it looks like there's nobody left that's uninvolved to close them. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- There's only one outstanding, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 12#JK! Studios. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- That discussion was {{close}}by Sandstein * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1986 days ago on 1 June 2019) Uninvolved admin needed for this one. Calidum 05:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- still awaiting closure. Calidum 20:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}, thanks. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 15:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1981 days ago on 6 June 2019) Please close. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 15:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Thanks, Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 15:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1955 days ago on 2 July 2019) Please close. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 06:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1992 days ago on 27 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian Assange#Request for Comment - Journalist? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... – bradv🍁 03:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1934 days ago on 24 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fascism#RfC: Description of Fascism in the lede sentence? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1993 days ago on 25 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at RfC on linking title to PMC. Thank you. Boghog (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Closed. – bradv🍁 02:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Bradv. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1965 days ago on 22 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Australia#RfC dated 23 June 2019 - Should religion be removed from the infobox?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I would be happy to close this as part of a committee if there are two others who are of a similar mind. Given how extensive the discussion is, with 33 discernible opinions lodged, I think a committee close would be most appropriate as a confidence-building measure for those dissatisfied with the outcome. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Chetsford: I'd be happy to co-close this with you. DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- DannyS712 sorry for my delayed response. That sounds great. How would you like to proceed? Do you maybe want to sandbox a draft closing statement I can then give you my thoughts, or we could do it the other way around? Whatever is easiest for you. Chetsford (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Chetsford: well, I say we give it a few days for a third volunteer, if that is okay with you --DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me! Chetsford (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Chetsford: @DannyS712: Howdy hello! If you folks would still like a third editor for a closing committee, I would be willing to join. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Let's do it! Does someone want to sandbox a draft close and then the other two can weigh-in and discuss? Chetsford (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I need to read it first, I've skimmed it once, but want to read it twice through before I say anything about it. Sure is a long one too! Edit: I'll let y'all know when I've read it. I'm game to draft a close, although it may take a few days considering the scale of it all. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've started reading it, but its long and I want to make sure I don't spend all of my time on it, so it'll be a few days. I should have a lot of time on my hands on Sunday, so at that point I can take a look at any close that has been drafted or start one. Maybe we should have this discussion elsewhere though? --DannyS712 (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- User:CaptainEek/Sandbox_2:_Electric_Boogaloo That's where I've started collecting my thoughts on the RfC, it would also be a good page to have discussion. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've started reading it, but its long and I want to make sure I don't spend all of my time on it, so it'll be a few days. I should have a lot of time on my hands on Sunday, so at that point I can take a look at any close that has been drafted or start one. Maybe we should have this discussion elsewhere though? --DannyS712 (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I need to read it first, I've skimmed it once, but want to read it twice through before I say anything about it. Sure is a long one too! Edit: I'll let y'all know when I've read it. I'm game to draft a close, although it may take a few days considering the scale of it all. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Let's do it! Does someone want to sandbox a draft close and then the other two can weigh-in and discuss? Chetsford (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Chetsford: @DannyS712: Howdy hello! If you folks would still like a third editor for a closing committee, I would be willing to join. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me! Chetsford (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Chetsford: well, I say we give it a few days for a third volunteer, if that is okay with you --DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- DannyS712 sorry for my delayed response. That sounds great. How would you like to proceed? Do you maybe want to sandbox a draft closing statement I can then give you my thoughts, or we could do it the other way around? Whatever is easiest for you. Chetsford (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Chetsford: I'd be happy to co-close this with you. DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1951 days ago on 7 July 2019) I opened an RFC on July 6 on whether or not certain resigning administrators/crats should be considered under a cloud. Nobody has commented in a week and the bot archived it without closure. I am requesting closure on this. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- You opened it on 7 July, not July 6, as evidenced by this diff. Thirty days isn't up yet (it's still got the
{{rfc}}at the top), nor is it archived. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)- @Redrose64: Correction: it WAS archived after a week of no changes by the bot, but I undid the archive to allow proper closure. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} - was archived to Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 4#RFC:Should any FRAM-related resignation where the resigning editor performed controversial actions relating to WP:FRAM be considered under a cloud? 2 and closed by JFG 2 weeks ago --DannyS712 (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1919 days ago on 7 August 2019) Would an uninvolved eitor please assess the consensus on this RfC, taking into account the resolution that I proposed beneath? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Display name 99 - see [1] --DannyS712 (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1993 days ago on 26 May 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1982 days ago on 5 June 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1974 days ago on 14 June 2019) Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by MBisanz --DannyS712 (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1956 days ago on 2 July 2019) Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by MBisanz --DannyS712 (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1950 days ago on 8 July 2019) Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by MBisanz --DannyS712 (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1934 days ago on 23 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#RfC on mass changing "maiden flight" to "first flight"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1985 days ago on 2 June 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
{{already done}} QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1982 days ago on 5 June 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
{{already done}} QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1934 days ago on 23 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Primary topic and Incomplete disambiguation conflicts? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Iffy★Chat -- 21:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1924 days ago on 2 August 2019) Calling on an uninvolved and experienced editor to assess consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Exercise, take 2. Thanks in advance. — JFG talk 11:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2006 days ago on 13 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC: Clarification of OUTING? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Doing..., another user is in the process of closing this.Tvx1 12:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by @L235 --DannyS712 (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1988 days ago on 30 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:RT (TV network)#RfC: Propaganda? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by JzG. — Newslinger talk 06:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2022 days ago on 27 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography#RfC: Should the first section of albums be categorized as "studio" or "compilation albums"?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. I'm declining to close this RfC. The RfC was explicitly created for the purpose of soliciting
"outside opinion"
from uninvolved editors, and the RfC statement was open-ended ("Feel free to come up with a different idea"
). Unfortunately, there was relatively low participation and no consensus, despite having been relisted twice. It would be more beneficial to allow the discussion to continue at its own pace than to close it in its current state. — Newslinger talk 16:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1966 days ago on 21 June 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1939 days ago on 19 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Jackson#RfC: Is Tarraborrelli a good source for this article?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1922 days ago on 5 August 2019) Close it, please. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Doc James. — Newslinger talk 16:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1920 days ago on 6 August 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? This RfC should be allowed to run its course. Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1936 days ago on 21 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ilhan Omar#Juan Guaido RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2957 days ago on 4 October 2016) The discussion is older than 10 August, so it should be closed. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1993 days ago on 26 May 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for a new file naming criteria: harmonize extension name
(Initiated 1989 days ago on 29 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for a new file naming criteria: harmonize extension name? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1982 days ago on 5 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Indigenous intellectual property#RfC: Should the 'A history of claims and declarations...' section be an exhaustive list?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1981 days ago on 6 June 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1954 days ago on 4 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#RfC on "himself"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1945 days ago on 13 July 2019) Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Discussion was closed by User:Tavix 2 days ago. InvalidOS (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1967 days ago on 20 June 2019) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1952 days ago on 5 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ben Shapiro#RfC: Criticism of Shapiro's assertions about the uniqueness of science in the West? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
_Sketchbook_mainly_of_activities_of_Aboriginals_and_Whites_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
(Initiated 1913 days ago on 14 August 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Stanley Kubrick#Rfc: Should an Infobox be added? An admin would be ideal, as the issue has been hotly debated for several years. Bishonen | talk 13:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC).
- Well as I said I would close some discussions I otherwise wouldn't during my RfA I'll mark this as Doing.... As I will not post a final decision for a couple days (I like to read complicated discussions like this at least twice over a couple days before closing) if another editor wishes to join me for a joint close I would welcome that (but ping me here or leave a message on my talk page). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, that's great, thank you. Could you please put a note that you're doing it somewhere visible on Talk:Stanley Kubrick as well? (I've got a note currently at the very bottom of the page, which might be a good place for it.) I'm not sure all potential closers look here at this list, and it would be annoying, to put it mildly, if several people start working on closing. Inviting a joint close is fine, of course, but I mean it would be a waste of time if several people were to work concurrently on individual closes, without knowing about each other. As you say, it's likely to take some time to assess the discussion. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC).
- Bishonen, I put a note at the top of the RfC. I love your optimism that some other
idioteager beaver would be so excited to wade into an infobox dispute that we could have conflicting closes :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)- @Barkeep49: Oh, surely it happens. I'm picturing jostling closers in a three- or four-way edit conflict at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. :-) Bishonen | talk 16:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC).
- Bishonen, I put a note at the top of the RfC. I love your optimism that some other
- Barkeep49, that's great, thank you. Could you please put a note that you're doing it somewhere visible on Talk:Stanley Kubrick as well? (I've got a note currently at the very bottom of the page, which might be a good place for it.) I'm not sure all potential closers look here at this list, and it would be annoying, to put it mildly, if several people start working on closing. Inviting a joint close is fine, of course, but I mean it would be a waste of time if several people were to work concurrently on individual closes, without knowing about each other. As you say, it's likely to take some time to assess the discussion. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC).
- Some more attention is needed here, unfortunately. We have an involved participant, Bus stop, modifying the closing admin's comments. Pinging Bishonen and Barkeep49 --Laser brain (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have now formally {{done}} this close. Given that my attempt to close the discussion, a standard practice while a complicated close is underway, was reverted I remain unsurprised that I did not have to beat off other potential closers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1897 days ago on 29 August 2019) Please review the following. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Samee --DannyS712 (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1967 days ago on 21 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Bill Shorten? Thank you!--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC) {{done}} Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1975 days ago on 12 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis#Lead image? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC) {{Done}} Cinderella157 (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1910 days ago on 16 August 2019) There appears to be a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Naming countries in infoboxes. But since one editor in particular was strongly opposed, would an uninvolved editor please assess it? Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
{{Done}} Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1945 days ago on 12 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Constantinople#RFC on whether to change the end date of this article to 1930? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
{{Done}} Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1950 days ago on 8 July 2019) Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1942 days ago on 16 July 2019) Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed a few hours ago by Darkwind. Fish+Karate 10:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1942 days ago on 16 July 2019) Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Again by Darkwind. Fish+Karate 10:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1931 days ago on 27 July 2019) Most WP:TfD regulars have participated, so few closers available. czar 19:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1929 days ago on 29 July 2019) Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1900 days ago on 27 August 2019) Would an experienced administrator and/or discussion closer please close this discussion? Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed by Darkwind a few hours ago. Fish+Karate 11:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1900 days ago on 27 August 2019) Would an experienced administrator and/or discussion closer please close this discussion? Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed a few hours ago. Fish+Karate 11:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1942 days ago on 15 July 2019) Seems to have run its course, but not listed where administrators can see to close. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed 2 weeks ago. Fish+Karate 10:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1983 days ago on 5 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess this RfC? There have been no fresh !votes for quite some time. Thanks. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
{{Done}} Cinderella157 (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1929 days ago on 28 July 2019) Would an uninvolved eitor please assess the consensus on this RfC on the wording of a section of the article., even that section of the article had been moved to sub-article. Matthew hk (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- this was closed by another ed. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion appears to still to be open. — Newslinger talk 06:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Please review Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#RfC:Change title. This thread seems to have been deleted from this page without reason. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: It wasn't deleted, it was moved. There were three reasons: one, you posted it in the wrong section; two, it had already been requested by somebody else - who had posted their request in the proper section; third, duplicate requests waste peoples time. For those reasons, I shall shortly be moving this request also. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - This discussion is still open. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1923 days ago on 4 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abortion#RfC about the neutrality of the abortion's lead and Talk:Abortion#RfC v2? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Both RFC closes are {{Done}}. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 03:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1966 days ago on 21 June 2019) A merge request on the borderline of consensus which involved two pairs of articles. A zealous editor went ahead and merged one pair but not the other, leading to an inconstancy. The second pair either needs to be merged or the first merge should be undone. --LukeSurl t c 11:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1919 days ago on 7 August 2019) The discussion is older than 10 August, so it should be closed. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1999 days ago on 20 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kodomo no Jikan#Should Kodomo no Jikan be categorized as lolicon?? My third relist of the RfC reverted. A close would be useful since as noted in the RfC this has been discussed multiple times in the past. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1989 days ago on 29 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC - CoinDesk as a source? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 19:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 04:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1935 days ago on 23 July 2019) Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1938 days ago on 19 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to add suicidal disclaimer at Suicide? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- I second this request and came here to make it. I would close it, except that I've put a moratorium on doing so for myself (and also I'm involved). Due to the potential amount of disruption a decision to add a disclaimer may have, I think an admin (at the least) should be the one to make the closure. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, I've read through the discussion. I'll close it soon, may take some time. I would welcome if another person wanted to join and make this a two person close. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 04:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- This one is {{Done}} [2]. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1928 days ago on 29 July 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- RfC failed to attract enough community attention for a formal assessment of consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- In which case, {{not done}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- What does this outcome mean?GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: that's one for you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- GPRamirez5, it means that not enough editors participated to form a binding consensus but it seems like you and Fowler&fowler agree on the core idea that it needs inclusion but still need to come to an agreement as the the specifics of how to include. What seems like is happening for now is that the current wording, which is basically what you proposed at the RfC is staying. At some point Fowler has indicated they're going to propose an alternative version with more detail. Hopefully you two can come to an agreement then. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- What does this outcome mean?GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- In which case, {{not done}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1924 days ago on 2 August 2019) Would an experienced, uninvolved editor - preferably an administrator - please assess the consensus here? This has been outstanding for over a month and discussion has pretty much entirely died down. Gimubrc (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} this one too. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 17:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1887 days ago on 8 September 2019) Seeking an experienced and uninvolved editor to assess the consensus at Talk:Here, There & Everywhere (company)#Requested move 8 September 2019 Thank you. :) --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Marked {{Done}}, but technically {{Not done}} - this one has been re-listed a few days ago. FWIW, I would have relisted too as there's insufficient discussion at this stage. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1876 days ago on 19 September 2019) Withdrawn by nominator; no support !votes. Scolaire (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{close}} by Steven Crossin (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1992 days ago on 26 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about the MEK targeting civilians in the lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to ask an experienced admin take care of it. --Mhhossein talk 05:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 09:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1984 days ago on 3 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hafte Tir bombing#RFC about making more natural lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 09:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1980 days ago on 8 June 2019) Near-unanimous result, so an easy close. It's a guideline wording change, so best closed by an admin. — AReaderOutThataway t/c 15:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 09:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1919 days ago on 7 August 2019) Seeking an experienced and uninvolved editor to assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC about articles on three digit numbers. Thanks in advance! — JFG talk 23:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Participants have agreed on an outcome. Wug·a·po·des 00:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1918 days ago on 9 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:U.S. Route 131#Interchange types? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1885 days ago on 11 September 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please close this discussion? It is now moot, since the only "keep" !voter was the creator, who has now moved[3] the portal to project space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. This was a bit of an unusual circumstance and so if I set the options wrong on XfD closer please someone let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1939 days ago on 18 July 2019) Would an experienced uninvolved editor, preferably an administrator, please assess the consensus at this CENT-advertised RfC on the status of the portal guideline? Wug·a·po·des 03:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1959 days ago on 28 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The American Conservative? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 22:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1967 days ago on 20 June 2019) There is a RfC at this section. Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, Cinadon36 08:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1995 days ago on 23 May 2019) Could someone close this discussion if there is a clear consensus? If the decision is made to merge the articles I can do so myself. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1991 days ago on 28 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 267#Strange Fox News story about AOC and climate change? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 03:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Newslinger: I'm thinking that this is a {{not done}}. The discussion didn't necessarily need a formal close and it appears that the language at issue has been removed from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Do you still think it needs a close as I'm not seeing one as helpful here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1967 days ago on 20 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronald Reagan#RfC (Request for Comment) on drug trafficking aspect of Iran-Contra? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1877 days ago on 19 September 2019) The "Requested move 19 September 2019" has not attracted much interest, but can use a closure since it is in the way of a DYK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}} for now; I have relisted the RM to try and get some more discussion. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1885 days ago on 10 September 2019) Seeking an experienced and uninvolved editor to assess the consensus at Talk:ACP Magazines#Requested move 10 September 2019 Thank you. :) --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}} for now; I have relisted the RM to try and get some more discussion. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1951 days ago on 6 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party 2? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- This seems to be a more nuanced discussion than a standard RfC, I don't see any formal supports and opposes to compare. I'm marking it done here, but don't see a need for a formal closure there. If someone disagrees, please ping me and I can come back to it.--GRuban (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- In which case, {{not done}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- GRuban (talk · contribs), the link I added was incorrect. It should be Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party 2 (where there are formal supports), not Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party (where there are no formal supports). Let me know if this changes your opinion on whether it should be closed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you, that makes a difference, will look.--GRuban (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, really this time. --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you, that makes a difference, will look.--GRuban (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- GRuban (talk · contribs), the link I added was incorrect. It should be Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party 2 (where there are formal supports), not Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party (where there are no formal supports). Let me know if this changes your opinion on whether it should be closed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- In which case, {{not done}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1976 days ago on 11 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943#RfC: Material from the 2019 Geophysical Research Letters study? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Cunard, It looks like this discussion was archived without a formal close. At a glance, it seems like it's likely no consensus, in which case it wouldn't really benefit from a formal close (and also it doesn't look like anyone's complained about the lack of action). Should we reinstate the discussion to allow for a formal close, or just leave it be? signed, Rosguill talk 22:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rosguill (talk · contribs), an RfC participant asked here why the RfC has not been closed with these comments: "There was recently an RfC here. It seems to not so much have been closed by a human as to have been disappeared by bots.[1][2] Surely we should have a close" and "Now I'm really confused. You appear to have voted in the RfC.[3] Nothing wrong with that, but an RfC should be closed by an uninvolved user. Furthermore, I don't see any closing commit with a summary of the consensus as one usually sees."
Let me know if this changes your opinion on whether it should be closed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Cunard, thanks, I think in that case getting an actual close is warranted. signed, Rosguill talk 01:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Cunard, thanks, I think in that case getting an actual close is warranted. signed, Rosguill talk 01:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Rosguill (talk · contribs), an RfC participant asked here why the RfC has not been closed with these comments: "There was recently an RfC here. It seems to not so much have been closed by a human as to have been disappeared by bots.[1][2] Surely we should have a close" and "Now I'm really confused. You appear to have voted in the RfC.[3] Nothing wrong with that, but an RfC should be closed by an uninvolved user. Furthermore, I don't see any closing commit with a summary of the consensus as one usually sees."
(Initiated 1922 days ago on 4 August 2019) Would an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. See also the similar discussion at Talk:2019 Dayton shooting#Include or exclude victim names. TompaDompa (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1967 days ago on 20 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1916 days ago on 10 August 2019) If nobody closes this, the terrorists win. Thanks in advance! – Levivich 02:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1904 days ago on 22 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Greek language#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1898 days ago on 28 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Same-sex marriage#RfC: Is Same-Sex-Marriage legal nationwide in the United States?? Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC) {{done}} Dionysodorus (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1895 days ago on 31 August 2019) Would an uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kennedy Stewart (Canadian politician)#RfC: Capitalization - 40th mayor of Vancouver or 40th Mayor of Vancouver?? Thanks --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1899 days ago on 28 August 2019) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Plastikspork - see Special:Diff/919298220. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1954 days ago on 3 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 12#RfC: antifa and terrorism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1945 days ago on 13 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Taki's Magazine? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 17:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- This one is now {{done}} Barkeep49 (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1940 days ago on 17 July 2019) When the time comes, would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC about the first sentence? Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note to closer - This RfC should be allowed to run its course. I have just posted it here now so there is some advance notice. The topic of the RfC was originally discussed in this first RfC which was closed without consensus being reached. For much of the time it was open, editing on this article had been before ArbCom. Following that, a second RfC was opened and then closed early so other options could also be considered. A straw poll had occurred at the same time. This third RfC began to consider all options shortly thereafter.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This RfC is ready to be closed. Safrolic (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1925 days ago on 1 August 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus on this RfC? Legobot keeps removing RfC ID, so was adviced to bring it here for closure. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1922 days ago on 4 August 2019) Would an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. See also the similar discussion at Talk:2019 El Paso shooting#Include or exclude victim names. TompaDompa (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1921 days ago on 5 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Penny Rowson#RfC for infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1916 days ago on 10 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Australian#RfC Centre-right to right wing? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1914 days ago on 12 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#RFC - placement of "greatest" in tennis article leads? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1907 days ago on 19 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Richard B. Spencer#RFC 2: The Sequel? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1905 days ago on 21 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Duodecimal#RfC: Extra digits? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1905 days ago on 22 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Tucker Carlson#Poll: Do allegations of racism belong in the lead section?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1949 days ago on 8 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gatestone Institute#RfC: Description as conservative and anti-Muslim in the first line of the lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Would an uninvolved experienced administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:Gatestone_Institute#RfC:_Description_as_conservative_and_anti-Muslim_in_the_first_line_of_the_lede? Thank you. (JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC))
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1931 days ago on 26 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israel Shamir#RFC: should we include claims by Shamir that he was a paratrooper and worked for the BBC and Haaretz which originate from his personal website? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1910 days ago on 16 August 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RFC on weighting sexual assault research? This is slightly under the 30 day mark, but there's been no discussion for a week. Thanks! Nblund talk 16:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... Barkeep49 (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2008 days ago on 10 May 2019) – Would an administrator assess this issue and take necessary action please. Ythlev (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC) @DannyS712: Stale discussions are exactly the ones that need admin involvement according to this page. Is no action to be taken against disruptive editing? Ythlev (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- No action required, this has been archived for months. Content disputes are not an issue for administrators. Should the issue still require administration attention due to conduct of your fellow users, then open a new thread on WP:ANI. Fish+Karate 11:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: Please explain what the administrators' noticeboard is for if admins just ignore the issues on them. When a users violates WP policies and discussion does not resolve the issue, is it not the job of admins to assess the arguments and take necessary action? Otherwise the edit war would just continue. Ythlev (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Are the issues still occurring? This is from over 4 months ago, so I believe if the same issues still occurring, a new thread would be better, particularly as it could provide context around additional things that have happened since 10 May when this thread was started. As you and Redrose64 disagree I shall step away from this one. Fish+Karate 08:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: What suggests that I "disagree" with Ythlev? Please use diffs where appropriate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- You both disagreed with me. I didn’t say you disagreed with Ythlev. Fish+Karate 22:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- This entry has been sitting here since May, and it seems doubtful whether it is at all appropriate or necessary for an admin (or anyone else) to close it. I just delisted the discussion, but was reverted by Redrose64, on the quite reasonable grounds that it is inappropriate simply to delete a discussion on which users have commented. Should this just sit here until an admin eventually closes it, or would it be preferable to e.g. remove it to the archives manually in order to preserve the comment thread? Dionysodorus (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Dionysodorus: We have established procedures on this page, and thread removal is performed by ClueBot III (talk · contribs) in response to the presence of certain trigger templates, which are:
{{resolved}};{{done}};{{already done}};{{not done}}and{{close}}. Any one of these will cause the thread that contains it to be archived. - If a given thread requires no further action, there are two things to be done: (i) mark the
{{initiated}}with|done=yes, which will change the "(Initiated ... days ago on ...)" from red to black; (ii) add a signed comment that includes one of those trigger templates. As far as I can work out, my "disagreement" with Fish and karate (talk · contribs) was here - simply, they used|done=yesbut didn't also use one of the templates that would trigger an archive. They go as a pair (example). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)- Ah I see. Thank you for your help Redrose64: I am aware of the procedure, but I hadn't realised that the close or not done templates would suffice to trigger ClueBot III.
- {{close}} Dionysodorus (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Dionysodorus: We have established procedures on this page, and thread removal is performed by ClueBot III (talk · contribs) in response to the presence of certain trigger templates, which are:
- This entry has been sitting here since May, and it seems doubtful whether it is at all appropriate or necessary for an admin (or anyone else) to close it. I just delisted the discussion, but was reverted by Redrose64, on the quite reasonable grounds that it is inappropriate simply to delete a discussion on which users have commented. Should this just sit here until an admin eventually closes it, or would it be preferable to e.g. remove it to the archives manually in order to preserve the comment thread? Dionysodorus (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- You both disagreed with me. I didn’t say you disagreed with Ythlev. Fish+Karate 22:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: What suggests that I "disagree" with Ythlev? Please use diffs where appropriate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Are the issues still occurring? This is from over 4 months ago, so I believe if the same issues still occurring, a new thread would be better, particularly as it could provide context around additional things that have happened since 10 May when this thread was started. As you and Redrose64 disagree I shall step away from this one. Fish+Karate 08:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: Please explain what the administrators' noticeboard is for if admins just ignore the issues on them. When a users violates WP policies and discussion does not resolve the issue, is it not the job of admins to assess the arguments and take necessary action? Otherwise the edit war would just continue. Ythlev (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1948 days ago on 10 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC about info box accused = Brenton Harrison Tarrant? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1952 days ago on 5 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 4#RfC: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC) One editor in the discussion specifically requested a closure by an administrator. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Just an experienced editor, not an admin, despite request, so in theory, you can ask that this be redone, but WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO; in other words, consensus was so clear I find it hard to believe any one would close this any other way. --GRuban (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1921 days ago on 5 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Central Europe#RfC about comparison between countries? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1887 days ago on 8 September 2019) already relisted once, discussion is still on-going. Frietjes (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Kudpung. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1881 days ago on 14 September 2019) already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by DeltaQuad.
(Initiated 1880 days ago on 16 September 2019) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)