Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 30
 | 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 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
(Initiated 1662 days ago on 20 April 2020) – Could we get a quick close and move for Nova Scotia killings → 2020 Nova Scotia attacks? This appears to be a WP:SNOW situation. There seems to be a clear consensus that the current name is inappropriate, though there may be continued discussion of a "final name" for the article down the road. This article concerns a mass shooting/killing, so it would be nice not to leave the poorly chosen initial title there longer than we need to. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- I believe only an admin can do this now, as the page is semi-protected.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- To editor Darryl Kerrigan:
Not done: so sorry, that is not a good example of a snow closure because there is significant opposition. While a cursory glance seems to be a consensus among supporters, we should wait until the move request has run at least seven days. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 22:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I am not the only one there that said it was a WP:SNOW. There seemed to me to be a clear consensus to move away from the general and poor title of Nova Scotia killings which is obviously too broad to one which was less so, but I fully admit as I did above (and there) that there will need to be continued discussion about the final name (ie whether we refer to this an an attack, killings, a mass shooting etc). I guess the perfect will have to be the enemy of the good for now.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- To editors Darryl Kerrigan and Paine Ellsworth: - I'm sorry, but by my count it's 42 support, 10 oppose, 4 other. If that's not WP:SNOW, what is? NickCT (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- It looks to me like a clear consensus, but not quite a SNOW situation. Still, it continues to befuddle me why we have this rule that RMs need to be kept open for 7 days before being closed. The consensus is not going to change in that time, and waiting just keeps the RM notice polluting the top of the article and the article title unchanged to the better one (particularly with the addition of "2020", which is nearly universally supported). @Paine Ellsworth: as someone who doesn't have any particularly strong opinion about attacks vs. killings, I'd support you just going ahead with the move. WP:IAR it if you need to, but leaving the proposal open for the sake of following the rules clearly does not make Wikipedia better. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: - Maybe not quite snow..... maybe sleet? NickCT (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- @NickCT: brb drafting WP:SLEET ;) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- To editor Sdkb: as you yourself said, "not quite a SNOW situation", and that is what was asked above, to close an infant RM under SNOW. The rules are there for a purpose. There have been too many times when a discussion was closed prematurely, and then reopened because editors, or even just one editor, thought that more talk was warranted. Several times I've seen RMs that took a turn in the 4th or 5th day, and that's why any controversial topic should allow for the discussion to peter out. Seven days is not the main rule, the main rule is for discussion to ebb, to subside. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 21:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: In that case, would there be a provision that'd allow you to keep the discussion open but make the move (at least for the 2020 part) now under a "prevailing" rationale. I can appreciate that further discussion might be useful, but this seems like way more of a WP:DEADLINEISNOW situation than a WP:NODEADLINE situation — the view count is likely going to fall drastically in the coming days. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Only a trusted admin should make that call. I don't think it's ever wise to slam the door on an ongoing, active discussion, not for any reason. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 22:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: In that case, would there be a provision that'd allow you to keep the discussion open but make the move (at least for the 2020 part) now under a "prevailing" rationale. I can appreciate that further discussion might be useful, but this seems like way more of a WP:DEADLINEISNOW situation than a WP:NODEADLINE situation — the view count is likely going to fall drastically in the coming days. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: - Maybe not quite snow..... maybe sleet? NickCT (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- It looks to me like a clear consensus, but not quite a SNOW situation. Still, it continues to befuddle me why we have this rule that RMs need to be kept open for 7 days before being closed. The consensus is not going to change in that time, and waiting just keeps the RM notice polluting the top of the article and the article title unchanged to the better one (particularly with the addition of "2020", which is nearly universally supported). @Paine Ellsworth: as someone who doesn't have any particularly strong opinion about attacks vs. killings, I'd support you just going ahead with the move. WP:IAR it if you need to, but leaving the proposal open for the sake of following the rules clearly does not make Wikipedia better. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- To editors Darryl Kerrigan and Paine Ellsworth: - I'm sorry, but by my count it's 42 support, 10 oppose, 4 other. If that's not WP:SNOW, what is? NickCT (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I am not the only one there that said it was a WP:SNOW. There seemed to me to be a clear consensus to move away from the general and poor title of Nova Scotia killings which is obviously too broad to one which was less so, but I fully admit as I did above (and there) that there will need to be continued discussion about the final name (ie whether we refer to this an an attack, killings, a mass shooting etc). I guess the perfect will have to be the enemy of the good for now.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- To editor Darryl Kerrigan:
- {{not done}} (for bot) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- To editor * Pppery *: just fyi, if I'm not mistaken the bot pays attention only to the {{Initiated}} template and its
|done=parameter. When|done=yes, then the bot archives the entry. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 22:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)- No, I'm pretty sure the bot archives posts based on what templates they transclude. See the
|archivenow=parameter of {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} at the top of the page. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- No, I'm pretty sure the bot archives posts based on what templates they transclude. See the
- To editor * Pppery *: just fyi, if I'm not mistaken the bot pays attention only to the {{Initiated}} template and its
- Comment - This is not a snow request by any means, please allow this to run for 7 days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1720 days ago on 22 February 2020) Lots of tensions have run high in this discussion. The editors involved (myself inclueded) have seemed to say everything they have to say. Would love to just have a definitive conclusion to this debate already. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Armbrust (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1707 days ago on 6 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC on removal of MOS:JOBTITLES? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by King of Hearts (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1707 days ago on 7 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games)#RfC: "(gamer)" or "(video game player)"? Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 21:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by King of Hearts (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1706 days ago on 7 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antifa (United States)#RfC: Capitalization? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by King of Hearts (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1699 days ago on 14 March 2020) Please review Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 11#Template:Brandy Clark, relisted thrice without listing a reason for doing so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) * Pppery * it has begun... 14:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1725 days ago on 17 February 2020) – Please close this MRV. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 15:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} – wbm1058 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1683 days ago on 30 March 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess consensus and close the discussion at Talk:State Academy of Fine Arts Stuttgart#Requested move 30 March 2020 as there have been no new developments in the past two weeks? Thank you Kunstakademie Stuttgart (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1739 days ago on 3 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hospitalized cases in the vaping lung illness outbreak#Inclusion criteria RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- This discussion has been been resolved in practice, but a formal and exceptionally clear closing statement would still be helpful. Otherwise, when one of the editors gets unblocked, we may be back here again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 01:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1732 days ago on 10 February 2020) Please assess consensus at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#RfC on sourcing. — JFG talk 10:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#RfC on sourcing? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 01:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1731 days ago on 11 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques/Archive_1#RfC: Scope? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 02:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1729 days ago on 13 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses/Archive 2#RfC about change proposal for infobox for caucus results? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, consensus was rough but clear, the changes had already been implemented without objection, and the discussion had been archived. Closing. signed, Rosguill talk 06:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1752 days ago on 22 January 2020) At the time of discussion, two users voiced their skepticism about the proposed merger, but they never engaged nor conclusively opposed the merger. A month after the discussion had halted I proceeded with the merge, but now an editor has come back reverting the merge. I'm open to a new discussion with him, but on the ground that the previous discussion was closed with consensus. Thank you,--Esponenziale (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} – wbm1058 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1728 days ago on 14 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Juan Guaidó#RfC on Acting President? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 07:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1662 days ago on 20 April 2020) Please close Talk:Nova Scotia killings#Requested move 20 April 2020 and move the page. In my view this is more of a WP:DEADLINENOW situation as this concerns a recent high profile mass shooting and there appears to be a strong consensus that the current title is insufficient and vague. The previous closer here, determined that we must wait seven days. Please close and move when that deadline passes.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Concur - I concur with this request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- This request is premature, given that not every discussion needs to be listed here, as opposed to relying on the users monitoring Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- With the greatest of respect, nothing about this request was premature. Sometimes the best way to get to a final result is to moderately improve something, while continuing to discuss how it could be made better. Good enough for now, lets keep talking about how to improve it further. Our bureaucratic systems, prevent that and tend to discard the "good" solution while we get further and further bogged down in what the perfect solution is... making it harder to reach the "perfect" solution anyway. We would be much further along if this was just moved, while we continued to discuss alternatives. Sometimes it is okay to dispense with a few rules in order to build a better encyclopedia. Strict interpretation of the 7 and 30 day waiting periods is a good idea when there is no deadline but crippling when there is.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- To editor Darryl Kerrigan: apologies and respect right back atcha; however, it begs the question why didn't you just boldly rename the page rather than opening a move request that had a minimum 7-day waiting period? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 14:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that given its current protection level only an admin or page mover could move the article, based on Crumpled Fire's statement there. Is that wrong? Based on those discussions, between the editors there, I followed Nnadigoodluck's suggestion to ask for the move here and not at WP:RM/TR. As they had discouraged NickCT from doing so. Perhaps, that was poor advice.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- All makes sense. When the edit screen is opened we find that editing protection (semi) expires on the 28th of April, and the full move protection expired at about 4am on April 23. That was about 3 days after the request was first opened. Any experienced editor can now close the discussion and, if that is the decision, can rename the page in 2 days or so. Seven days is the minimum, so it might go longer than that since there is a backlog. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 19:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that given its current protection level only an admin or page mover could move the article, based on Crumpled Fire's statement there. Is that wrong? Based on those discussions, between the editors there, I followed Nnadigoodluck's suggestion to ask for the move here and not at WP:RM/TR. As they had discouraged NickCT from doing so. Perhaps, that was poor advice.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Darryl Kerrigan:
Strict interpretation of the 7 and 30 day waiting periods
For RfCs, 30 days is a misinterpretation as I understand things. That's the time when the RfC is automatically de-listed by the bot, not a recommended duration. There is no guidance suggesting a 30-day duration for RfCs, and editors can re-list it if they feel that the issue would still benefit from more eyes. Although this discussion is not about an RfC, I felt this should be pointed out here due to the widespread misunderstanding of this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- To editor Darryl Kerrigan: apologies and respect right back atcha; however, it begs the question why didn't you just boldly rename the page rather than opening a move request that had a minimum 7-day waiting period? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 14:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- With the greatest of respect, nothing about this request was premature. Sometimes the best way to get to a final result is to moderately improve something, while continuing to discuss how it could be made better. Good enough for now, lets keep talking about how to improve it further. Our bureaucratic systems, prevent that and tend to discard the "good" solution while we get further and further bogged down in what the perfect solution is... making it harder to reach the "perfect" solution anyway. We would be much further along if this was just moved, while we continued to discuss alternatives. Sometimes it is okay to dispense with a few rules in order to build a better encyclopedia. Strict interpretation of the 7 and 30 day waiting periods is a good idea when there is no deadline but crippling when there is.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- There is currently no consensus as despite there being a larger amount of support votes, a vast majority of those votes indicate their support for a move, but offer several different titles than the RM proposal. As that is getting is no where, Best to close as no consensus and open an RfC with the several options that have been offered for people to choose from. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 04:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - @Vaselineeeeeeee:, on one hand, I could not agree with you more, however, we could also set up some type of voting system at the move request to choose a new title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please review Talk:Nova Scotia killings#Requested move 20 April 2020 as soon as you are able, which has now been open for more than one week, as the talk page is growing over 200 kB rapidly. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by qedk (t 愛 c) at 07:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 11:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1710 days ago on 3 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on linking to template namespace? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on linking to template namespace? The RfC concerns the placement of wikilinks to the template namespace in a navbox. Thanks, Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 01:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Closing
in progress
Done. My legs are shaking a little. Is this how it feels everytime when you close a discussion? {{replyto}} Can I Log In's(talk) page 04:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC); edited 05:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)- It feels that way when it's a particularly contentious discussion. But it gets less intense as you close more RfCs and become more confident in your ability to assess the consensus in RfCs and explain your closing rationale in detail. Thank you for closing the RfC, Can I Log In (talk · contribs)! I hope that you close more RfCs at WP:ANRFC whenever you're inclined. Thanks again! Cunard (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Close reverted for "not going to take it seriously". {{replyto}} Can I Log In
's(talk) page 18:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Doing.... Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1706 days ago on 7 March 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 03:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1704 days ago on 9 March 2020) Not a complicated close, and the merge has already been implemented. It just needs an official close from an uninvolved editor. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Flyer22 Frozen, RexxS basically closed it already as I think you know, maybe not officially but like a WP:SNOW close. More stating this for admin so they realise this can be speedily and uncontroversially be closed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- That is not a close. And it's clear that RexxS was cautious about officially closing it, which was the right call, given how involved RexxS is in the discussion. Yes, RexxS boldly merged the articles, but RexxS still did not do an official close; RexxS clearly stated, "Whatever the details of the eventual closure, it is apparent that there is overwhelming support to merge the two articles into one." Notice the part I bolded. It doesn't even matter that RexxS merging the articles goes against RexxS's vote; I still I don't think it's good or best that RexxS officially close it, just like I wouldn't think it's good or best that either of us officially close it. If this were not a controversial RfC, it would be different. But it was a controversial RfC, with you and another editor arguing differently from others. Editors have disagreed on what is WP:SNOW and aspects of WP:Closing discussions. Furthermore, with the way the RfC is now, late responses could pile on, as they have in other RfC cases before the RfC was closed in a way that no new comments could be added to it. I don't see that you needed to make the above comment. I clearly stated, "Not a complicated close, and the merge has already been implemented. It just needs an official close from an uninvolved editor." I don't want to now argue over how the RfC should be closed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1697 days ago on 16 March 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 03:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1692 days ago on 22 March 2020) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this RFC? Thanks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1761 days ago on 13 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#RfC: Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is a tricky one because there is a clear consensus to go against the policy at WP:AT, and the discussion is being carried out at a WikiProject level, so its closure could have far-ranging implications. My gut instinct is that this calls for an amendment to AT and/or an addition to WP:NCTV (which currently does not have any advice on official vs colloquial names), but it's possible that the appropriate call at this time is to start a new discussion at WT:AT. I'd appreciate input from editors that have made similar closures before. signed, Rosguill talk 21:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think some kind of discussion would be needed at WP:AT since it is policy whereas the RfC at WP:TV would likely be added to MOS:TV which is a guideline. Policies supersede guidelines. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 23:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have unarchived the discussion ([1]) and left a note reminding folks there that if they wish to use official titles rather than commonly used titles, they should get broader consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. SilkTork (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have set up a discussion at AT: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RfC:_Official_title_v_commonname_for_television_episodes, but I have worded it poorly so the issue has not been explained properly. I will need to rephrase it. SilkTork (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have unarchived the discussion ([1]) and left a note reminding folks there that if they wish to use official titles rather than commonly used titles, they should get broader consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. SilkTork (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think some kind of discussion would be needed at WP:AT since it is policy whereas the RfC at WP:TV would likely be added to MOS:TV which is a guideline. Policies supersede guidelines. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 23:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1720 days ago on 22 February 2020) The RfC was closed by one of the participants on March 13th. However, a new discussion (not an RfC) was opened below the RfC 3 days after the RfC was opened (Talk:North Macedonia#Options for including "Macedonia"). That discussion is still ongoing, but two editors that support one side are claiming consensus, when clearly it is not the case. Please advise. Khirurg (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1695 days ago on 19 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1718 days ago on 25 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stanley Kubrick#lede photo? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1668 days ago on 14 April 2020) Would an editor assess consensus and close this RfC when the time is right? Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- This still has over sixteen days to run. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}} * Pppery * it has begun... 03:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1653 days ago on 29 April 2020) Request for procedural close RfC questions are supposed to be neutral and brief and the question for this RfC is not. It includes incorrect claims as well as non-neutral attacks against editors who have opposed the nominator's POV and what essentially are unsubstantiated claims of canvassing by those same editors. Accordingly, this RfC should be closed. Please see my comments at the RfC for more information. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- AussieLegend is trying to thwart other people's attempts at reaching external closure. No consensus has been reached, it's just useless to and fro, argumentative and not constructive. Please do not close this request until NON-BIASED EXTERNAL comments have been considered. Ashton 29 (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is not the place for complaining. The question is flawed and the request for closure is supported by other editors. The closing admin will be able to make up his or her own mind on their own. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- AussieLegend is trying to thwart other people's attempts at reaching external closure. No consensus has been reached, it's just useless to and fro, argumentative and not constructive. Please do not close this request until NON-BIASED EXTERNAL comments have been considered. Ashton 29 (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}} The opening statement has been revised, and as it is still early and no outside !voters have opined yet, this shouldn't be a problem and the discussion will continue from here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1721 days ago on 21 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Locality categorization by historical subdivisions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} − Pintoch (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1708 days ago on 5 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#RfC on Steven Universe Future hatnote? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} − Pintoch (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1703 days ago on 10 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Goths#RFC about the Name section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1687 days ago on 27 March 2020) Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1685 days ago on 28 March 2020) Would an editor assess and provide feedback at the discussion at Talk:Beethoven#RfC: European? Thanks, James343e (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- @James343e: Presumably you mean Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven#European. This was never a formal WP:RFC, but even so, to request closure after just over twelve hours is unusual. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry I made the mistake of being too precipitate. I think we are solving the discussion. I will only ask for help back if absolutely necessary. Cheers, James343e (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}} as withdrawn by the close requester without prejudice against listing this discussion here again if unresolved. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry I made the mistake of being too precipitate. I think we are solving the discussion. I will only ask for help back if absolutely necessary. Cheers, James343e (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 2063 days ago on 16 March 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the merge consensus for a proposal to merge McKay Bay into Tampa Bay? Klbrain (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 2049 days ago on 31 March 2019) Please review Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers#Proposed split of "Perpetrator" section. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1698 days ago on 16 March 2020) Please close the discussion. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 05:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1727 days ago on 15 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Football squad player#Redesign RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Prince (novelist)
(Initiated 1649 days ago on 3 May 2020) Can someone bring formal closure to the discussion whether to delete Michael Prince's author's page at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Prince_(novelist) Viewerindepth (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Viewerindepth: {{not done}} AfDs run for seven days (and even then, may be relisted for a further seven), this one was only opened today. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1713 days ago on 29 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Art Nouveau/Archive 1#Request for comment on Stile Liberty in Italy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} − Pintoch (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1702 days ago on 11 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Adolf Hitler#Request for comment on number of Jewish deaths in The Holocaust? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1681 days ago on 2 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#RfC: "mainland China" or "China" in article titles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1719 days ago on 23 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Request for comment: IA/OoI is a fringe theory? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1659 days ago on 23 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Auto-linking titles in citations of works with free-to-read DOIs? Thanks. − Pintoch (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I commented at the RfC asking if any editors object to WP:SNOW close. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}} since an IP opposes the early closure − Pintoch (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1726 days ago on 16 February 2020) Would an editor please try and close this RfC. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1721 days ago on 21 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 23:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1702 days ago on 11 March 2020) Would an editor please assess consensus and close this RfC. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1689 days ago on 24 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)#RfC: Description of the 2008 November ceasefire breakdown? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1661 days ago on 22 April 2020) Over several relists pretty much all the regular RfD admins seem to have participated, so someone else is needed to conclude this! ~ mazca talk 23:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Deryck Chan --DannyS712 (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 2130 days ago on 8 January 2019): Would any uninvolved editor please consider the consensus for a merge between Nat Turner and Nat Turner's slave rebellion. Klbrain (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}}, marking for the bot. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1677 days ago on 5 April 2020) Would an administrator kindly close this RfC, which has generated a clear consensus? Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- If it's "generated a clear consensus" why do you need it closing? See the first pool ball (Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.) at the top of this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:Redrose64, thank you for your response. Since I initiated the RfC, I do not wish to make any changes to the article without a formal closure; I do not wish to edit war either if this consensus isn't apparent to others. As such, I would appreciate a formal closure of RfC. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by User:StAnselm − Pintoch (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- User:Redrose64, thank you for your response. Since I initiated the RfC, I do not wish to make any changes to the article without a formal closure; I do not wish to edit war either if this consensus isn't apparent to others. As such, I would appreciate a formal closure of RfC. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1676 days ago on 6 April 2020) Would an experienced editor kindly close this very significant RfC, please? The consensus on the question seems clear, but it would be helpful to have a recommendation for the wording to be added to the MoS guideline. --RexxS (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by User:the wub − Pintoch (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1688 days ago on 25 March 2020) Seeking closure. -Pudeo (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1645 days ago on 7 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}} This is now in the approved list. Many of the current members of that list were approved before this one (weeks or even months before in several cases), so I don't think that it would be fair to artificially push this one to the front. The DYK regulars should be allowed to process this in their own time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1645 days ago on 7 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery#Jogging versus running? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by AzureCitizen (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1659 days ago on 23 April 2020) Please close the discussion. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} as relisted by Primefac. Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1662 days ago on 21 April 2020) Please review Talk:2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks#Killer's_name, Talk:2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks#Type_of_gun_used?, Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks#Second deadliest?, Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks#Names of victims and Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks#Dead and injured dogs. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Some of these discussions have been archived. And I informally closed two of them as an involved editor. I am not sure these need formal closes. If they do please override my closes. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1649 days ago on 4 May 2020) Could an uninvolved administrator please assess the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock request: GargAvinash/Kumargargavinash and implement a decision? signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by TonyBallioni signed, Rosguill talk 21:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1648 days ago on 4 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Master Minds#Requested move 4 May 2020? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1646 days ago on 7 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#Did_you_know_nomination? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: First, it's not at Talk:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery#Did you know nomination, that's merely a transclusion of the real discussion which is at Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery. Second, I already answered this three days ago, now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 30#Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery; hence, {{not done}}.
- This is not the first time that you've raised another request for a discussion that has already been dealt with; when posting requests here, please make sure that you add this page to your watchlist so that you will see the replies when we make them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1650 days ago on 2 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#Requested move 2 May 2020? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}, closed by Sceptre (talk) at 01:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 05:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1675 days ago on 8 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive319#Review of RfC close by User:Cunard? As the editor who closed the RfC under review, I would be grateful if an editor would bring closure to the review. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, officially, though I do note the closure of the RFC appears to be endorsed. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1889 days ago on 7 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Infobox picture? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1715 days ago on 27 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders#RfC: AOC comment about Politico? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} no formal close needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1726 days ago on 16 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Religion in Israel#RfC: Pie chart? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} The discussion is stale and the pie chart in question has already been replaced. SpinningSpark 16:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}, actually. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Primefac: It was because the chart had already been replaced from the one in the article at the time the RfC was opened. I mght have got this wrong, but I did look. SpinningSpark 17:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}, actually. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1721 days ago on 21 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players#RfC on Honours section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} No request from participants. Discussion is stale and changes have already been made to the page as a result. SpinningSpark 16:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1703 days ago on 10 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:University of Pittsburgh#RfC about the description of the governance of this university? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1702 days ago on 11 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bakarkhani#RfC about the infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1691 days ago on 23 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Down syndrome#RfC on the first part of the first sentence? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1686 days ago on 28 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Women's rights in Iran#RFC on Bayat's fear? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1682 days ago on 31 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Project Veritas#RfC on motives for targeting ACORN? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1680 days ago on 3 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alan Dershowitz#RfC on Menetrez response? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1672 days ago on 10 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New York City Subway#Rfc about station layouts? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1669 days ago on 13 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deep state in the United States#RfC: Should the lead paragraph include explicit mention of non-conspiracy theories of the Deep state in the United State as detailed in existing body text and footnotes?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Time to close AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lupe Hernández
(Initiated 1646 days ago on 6 May 2020) This article Lupe Hernández has now been up for deletion for another 7 days after the AFD was relisted. I think it's time to close this debate. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Barkeep49. Primefac (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC).
(Initiated 1908 days ago on 18 August 2019): Discussion longstanding and somewhat scattered with additional comments at Talk:Radagast#Merge and separate merge discussions of other Middle-earth articles on the talk page; there was also an AfD from 12 November 2019 resulting in Keep. I attempted close as recorded at the end of the discussion at 19:13, 12 February 2020 but this was reverted at 16:08, 18 March 2020, so please close. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1817 days ago on 17 November 2019)
Please determine the consensus (if any) at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map. Thank you,
SSSB (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: An RfC has just started to discuss whether there should be a map at all. Therefore this discussion may be void after the RfC closes.
SSSB (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)- Note: That RfC has finished and we still need this discussion to be closed. Thanks,
SSSB (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)- {{done}} Discussion is closed. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1744 days ago on 30 January 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus and close this merge proposal? It's not a long discussion, but it has been there since 30 January. Crossroads -talk- 06:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1687 days ago on 27 March 2020) It would be helpful for an admin to assess consensus and close this discussion about a timely topic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes AND Rfc regarding the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries infobox template
(Initiated 1717 days ago on 26 February 2020) & (Initiated 1709 days ago on 4 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at these related RfCs here & here. This may be a difficult close, as the conversation has had a tenancy to spill over into other talk page sections and overlaps with other RfCs. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note to closer: A participant discussion is taking place here with the hope of resolving or partly resolving the first of these RfCs without the need for a formal close. With any luck, that discussion may resolve or narrow the issues of the first RfC. I do not believe its creator, Davemoth, intended it to resolve the issues raised in the second RfC however.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1716 days ago on 27 February 2020) Requesting an administrator to please close the RfC and ensuing discussions there, since there is already a consensus not to add Josephus' Vita to the Vita Disambiguation page.Davidbena (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1715 days ago on 27 February 2020) Please close this discussion, thank you.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1710 days ago on 3 March 2020) RFC has been open for 15 days, but has seen no new participation in 11 days. An administrative close will likely be needed, and sooner seems better than later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}}, RFC tags are still there, and comments are still being made. Feel free to re-add for a closure when the time comes. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1700 days ago on 14 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian Assange#RfC about Sentence in Lede on GRU Indictments? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1689 days ago on 24 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: North Korea in the lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1684 days ago on 30 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Simvastatin#Clarification of RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1679 days ago on 3 April 2020) Any one can close this discussion? thanks.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} SharabSalam, I closed this as not done yesterday intentionally. The consensus is obvious to anyone who reads it and nothing would change. We should not be flooding ANRFC with these requests when there is not a closer actually needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1675 days ago on 8 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Greece/Archive 1#RfC on "concern that Turkey may deliberately send infected refugees... to spread the virus through the camps"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} stalled RfC with no talk page edits for nearly a month while the article itself is being actively edited. If the question is still relevant to the article after a month of no activity on a changing situation, one of the active participants can request a close here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1672 days ago on 11 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at this discussion? Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1669 days ago on 13 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:One America News Network#RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Restored request, since the One America News Network article still shows a {{Disputed inline}} tag for the wording in question. The language was subject to edit warring, and a formal closure would be very helpful. — Newslinger talk 19:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Newslinger see close. For what it's worth, I consider this the best example of anything on this board right now of something that should not be listed here. The participants should be able to implement the consensus without a close, needing one for something like this hurts the natural talk page process, imo. So, closed it per your request, but I think it shouldn't have been closed at all :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Restored request, since the One America News Network article still shows a {{Disputed inline}} tag for the wording in question. The language was subject to edit warring, and a formal closure would be very helpful. — Newslinger talk 19:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1654 days ago on 29 April 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Against All Will? This discussion, which has now been relisted three times, should be closed as "no consensus", as it did not achieve consensus after two relists. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}}, it's a perfectly valid relist. Primefac (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1654 days ago on 28 April 2020) Should his article state that he is Jewish? People have opinions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- They do, don't they. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Marking on behalf of user:Drmies who has closed it. SpinningSpark 14:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1648 days ago on 4 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#Collaboration group? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}}, as there's nothing to "do"; it's just a group of editors looking to improve the page. Primefac (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1699 days ago on 15 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ilhan Omar#RfC about allegations of an affair? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1697 days ago on 16 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about statements from former members of the MEK? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
BLP issue at Allegations against Joe Biden
(Initiated 1653 days ago on 29 April 2020) There's been an extended talk page discussion and poll, after an editor several times replaced an image of Biden's accuser -- which had been in place since near the time the article was created -- with a compound image in which Biden is shown alongside the accuser. Could a BLP-oriented Admin please have a look at this and advise as appropriate. After a brief respite with talk page discussion underway, the side-by-side illustration was again substituted this morning, so a timely review would help us move forward one way or the other. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1694 days ago on 19 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess if, and if yes what, consensus was reached at Talk:Birds of Prey (2020 film)#RfC? Note there is some discussion immediately above the RfC that should be considered. thank you. ToeFungii (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: The discussion has been archived: Talk:Global warming/Archive 80#Second discussion on titles for potential move request
(Initiated 1802 days ago on 2 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Talk:Global warming#Second discussion on titles for potential move request. Various topics may require assessment: A) is there consensus for/against a split/fork between 'Climate Change' and 'Global warming' B) Is there consensus to start a rename proposal for either of the two options on the table B) is there consensus to wait a period of time for more developments/research before making an official move. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} @Femkemilene: The discussion has been archived and participants seem to have reached the conclusion that they should wait (for several years?) before making a decision. I would be uncomfortable closing a discussion that has been archived, such a close may come as a big surprise to current watchers of the page who may have wished to participate, and even some of the participants who may have believed the issue had been allowed to die. RfCs that are still live should be pinned to the talk page using {{pin section}} to prevent bot archiving. No prejudice against unarchiving the discussion and resubmitting. SpinningSpark 11:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1634 days ago on 19 May 2020) This RfC has run it's course, but was improperly withdrawn and then closed by the original poster. An independent review / co-sign of the closing statement would be welcome. Thanks, 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Talk:COVID-19 is a redirect, containing no discussion threads; even following the redirect to Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 does not yield a section named "RfC on inclusion of lab-accident theory", and nor is there one in its archives. Hence, we don't know which discussion you refer to. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1662 days ago on 20 April 2020) Please could this RSN RfC be closed by an uninvolved editor. I am posting here following this comment. Many thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Doing... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1628 days ago on 24 May 2020) Would an uninvolved administrator please close Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Rich Farmbrough's editing_restrictions, again. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Joe Biden#Tara Reade alleged Biden "penetrated [her] with his fingers" without her consent
(Initiated 1684 days ago on 29 March 2020) Please review Talk:Joe Biden#Tara Reade alleged Biden "penetrated [her] with his fingers" without her consent. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- The RfC is at Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_10#Tara_Reade_alleged_Biden_"penetrated_[her]_with_his_fingers"_without_her_consent, and that proposed text is currently in the article; the RfC is fairly split in terms of arguments, and is sort of outdated, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}I agree and am going to mark this as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1634 days ago on 18 May 2020) Please review Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#African-American. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} no close needed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1633 days ago on 19 May 2020) Would an experienced administrator or editor please review Talk:Yang Xiuqiong#Requested move 19 May 2020 and move the page if deemed appropriate. Thank you. --CC123C (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1631 days ago on 21 May 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess and close Talk:Government of Australia#Requested move 21 May 2020? Thank you! ItsPugle (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1663 days ago on 19 April 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#RfC: Burden of proof for disputed? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1705 days ago on 8 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Newslaundry on OpIndia? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Cunard, I noticed that you restored this discussion from the archive and then listed it here for closure. This discussion was actually an ordinary discussion and not an RfC. If you believe a formal closure would be helpful, that is totally fine, but I think this request belongs in the #Other types of closing requests section. Thanks for keeping all of the RfCs in order – it's something I really appreciate! — Newslinger talk 10:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Newslinger (talk · contribs), and thank you for the excellent work you've done at WP:RSN and WP:ANRFC! I have moved this close request from the #RfCs section to the #Other types of closing requests section. There has been substantial discussion about the reliability of the source, so I think a close would be helpful to determine whether the source can be used to verify the proposed material. If you think the issue is already resolved or a close would not be helpful, I am fine with withdrawing this close request. Cunard (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think a withdrawal is needed. This discussion will be, in all likelihood, the first of many discussions on this source, and a closure would probably be helpful. — Newslinger talk 11:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Newslinger (talk · contribs), and thank you for the excellent work you've done at WP:RSN and WP:ANRFC! I have moved this close request from the #RfCs section to the #Other types of closing requests section. There has been substantial discussion about the reliability of the source, so I think a close would be helpful to determine whether the source can be used to verify the proposed material. If you think the issue is already resolved or a close would not be helpful, I am fine with withdrawing this close request. Cunard (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1642 days ago on 10 May 2020) Proposal to merge two articles into one with rewrite. Uninvolved editor sought to assess consensus and close. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC) {{done}} Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Disclaimer: This is my first time posting here, so please let me know if I haven't followed protocol.
(Initiated 1629 days ago on 23 May 2020) Could an experienced closer take a look at that section to see if new comments are constructive? It was originally a question about the readability of a long sentence, but recent additions have only been snarky passive-aggressive comments bordering on WP:PERSONALATTACKS by some veteran editors (Two diffs for consideration: [1] [2]) and I personally feel the discussion has become unconstructive at this point. Thank you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}} I don't see the point. It's the reference desk; consensus there is not going to be imposed to article space, and the discussion seems to have died down (quite in keeping with what generally happens at Wikipedia Reference Desks). I am marking this as answered. Please feel free to revert if I've got it wrong or you disagree. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1623 days ago on 29 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please close Talk:Twin_Cities_riots#Requested_move_29_May_2020_(3), which is duplicative of Talk:Twin_Cities_riots#Requested_move_29_May_2020? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}} This RM was started today, why do you need it closing so soon? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1623 days ago on 29 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Twin Cities riots#Requested move 29 May 2020 (3) and Talk:Twin Cities riots#Requested move 29 May 2020 (4), which seem to be duplicative and violate WP:MULTI? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. (3) closed by Amakuru (talk) at 10:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC), and (4) closed by CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ at 18:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 19:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1657 days ago on 25 April 2020) Please assess the consensus regarding whether the use of "(footballer)" and "(soccer player)" is enough to distinguish between two players of the same sport hailing from countries that speak different varieties of English. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1651 days ago on 1 May 2020) Would an administrator who has not edited the article assess consensus and close this RfC when appropriate? Thanks--Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Although we have received many very helpful observations, suggestions, opinions, and points of order (for lack of a better term), we unfortunately have not reached consensus. I therefore support Freeknowledgecreator's request for closure. (I posted the RfC.) Thank you! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Resolved mark}} I closed the RfC. The editor who created the article and who created this request for closure (Freeknowledgecreator) turned out to be a sock-puppet, now banned. We have consequently reached consensus easily re: how to move forward. Thank you. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1654 days ago on 29 April 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Against All Will, which has been outstanding for over 3 weeks? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1640 days ago on 12 May 2020) A small discussion about date format for an article with strong national ties to a non-english speaking country (Denmark). Sparked a longer discussion os a MOS talkpage, but that did not lead to any changes to MOS. I would like to use the closure as an indicator on whether it would be appropriate to open similar discussions in the future. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1683 days ago on 31 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ethosuximide#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mdaniels5757, would you consider signing your RfC close? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 Thanks for reminding me, done. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mdaniels5757, would you consider signing your RfC close? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1666 days ago on 17 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Should this article include Tara Reade's criminal complaint against Joe Biden?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Drmies at 17:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
merger discussion at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra
(Initiated 1681 days ago on 1 April 2020) at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra#Proposed merge of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Pune into 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra. To be fair, there is one comment against the merge in on the talkpage, out of the discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1629 days ago on 23 May 2020) - requesting a close by an uninvolved editor. Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1620 days ago on 1 June 2020) Please review this discussion, which is duplicative of the one above it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1620 days ago on 1 June 2020) Please review this discussion, which is duplicative of the one above it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1672 days ago on 10 April 2020) Would an administrator assess the consensus at the discussions of this page. The discussion is starting to slow down and I think now would be the time for a close. Interstellarity (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Doing... Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by myself and DannyS712. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1650 days ago on 2 May 2020) Very lengthy, but a formal close is needed. Thanks. Kanguole 10:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to close it, may take a bit. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{Close}}. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1627 days ago on 25 May 2020) Would highly appreciate someone kind enough to lend their time to assess closing this discussion. JustBeCool (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- @JustBeCool: {{not done}} - it still has almost twenty days left to run. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1619 days ago on 2 June 2020) This is a very high profile article that's been overtaken by events since its deletion discussion began. Could an uninvolved admin please take a look and either close it early, or explicitly decline to (so that we don't have sixteen admins look at it and decide to do nothing, and have the seventeenth close it anyway)? —Cryptic 06:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- I've had a quick look and there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus either way yet, certainly nothing approaching the snowball clause. I would leave it open for at least a few more days, if not the full seven, because if nothing else a close now is likely to be challenged and you'll end up with AfD/DRV notices on top of it for even longer. – Joe (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1692 days ago on 21 March 2020) I would like a formal closure of this RFC (includes reference to the accompanying discussion above) by an uninvolved editor. --Cold Season (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1671 days ago on 11 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 70#Requiring non-free content to indicate that in their filenames? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Mazca. — Newslinger talk 07:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1688 days ago on 25 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Religion in Albania#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Whew.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1647 days ago on 6 May 2020) Discussion has died out by around 12 May. starship.paint (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Sheesh.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1615 days ago on 7 June 2020) Could we get a speedy close of this RfC? This is a WP:SNOW close. The editor that opened this has been told by two editors that he is beating a dead horse, but he refuses to withdraw the RfC. He is also arguing that since he has now started a RfC, his edits are unassailable until there is a formal close. This seems to me to be a clear attempt to game the system after we just had a RfC about this issue which was closed by SpinningSpark on May 22, 2020.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thus user is just trying to start new arguments constantly. This Rfc deserves to be up and the people deserve to be heard. This user not only called the previous Rfc “garbage” but the closer of that Rfc said it was unclear AND that Rfc did not reach a consensus on the issue of withdrawn candidates. I’ve argued with Darryl for two days over this and Darryl has gotten nowhere no matter how many people he/she complains to, there’s no reason to close this Rfc after just one day and just hours after I put the Rfc notice on the pages that would be effected by it. Let the people decide. Darryl also refuses to assume good faith, I have no intention to “game the system”, “vandalize” be “disruptive” or “go against consensus”. This is like the fifth place Darryl has complained it’s ridiculous. Smith0124 (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- The "garbage" RfC I was referring to was the one Smith created (and which needs to be closed). He has been asked to withdraw it, told that it violates the already established consensus and told to put down the stick. If he fails to withdraw it and revert his edits, and a speedy close is not otherwise available, I will do so.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thus user is just trying to start new arguments constantly. This Rfc deserves to be up and the people deserve to be heard. This user not only called the previous Rfc “garbage” but the closer of that Rfc said it was unclear AND that Rfc did not reach a consensus on the issue of withdrawn candidates. I’ve argued with Darryl for two days over this and Darryl has gotten nowhere no matter how many people he/she complains to, there’s no reason to close this Rfc after just one day and just hours after I put the Rfc notice on the pages that would be effected by it. Let the people decide. Darryl also refuses to assume good faith, I have no intention to “game the system”, “vandalize” be “disruptive” or “go against consensus”. This is like the fifth place Darryl has complained it’s ridiculous. Smith0124 (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1619 days ago on 2 June 2020) This rambling thread has been going on for almost three weeks, with multiple proposals discussed. Could somebody wrap this up, please? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1617 days ago on 4 June 2020) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Arsi786 A topic ban was proposed too which has only seen support so far. Thread can be closed now. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by QEDK. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1681 days ago on 1 April 2020) Would an administrator please assess the consensus at the discussions at this page? No rush on this, since it won't be needed until next April, but it should be done thoroughly, since there are (in my view) a lot of non-policy based responses that need to be discounted. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've done one; there are several more discussions to close on that page, though.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've done one, there are two more to go. starship.paint (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Closed RfC #4 (talk and project spaces) as clear consensus to ban pranks on Talk and Help Talk pages and rough consensus to not impose such a ban on Wikiprojects with further considerations. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed RfC #5 (joke XfD's) as no consensus to initiate the proposed restriction. This closes the last of this group of RfC's. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I've done one, there are two more to go. starship.paint (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1668 days ago on 14 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#RFC: West Bank village articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}, because I'm a glutton for punishment.—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1668 days ago on 14 April 2020) Would an editor assess consensus and close this RfC when appropriate? Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1659 days ago on 23 April 2020) Discussion stalled weeks ago. Please can an uninvolved admin close this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (NAC) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1658 days ago on 24 April 2020) Formal close needed SpinningSpark 11:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1658 days ago on 24 April 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks#RFC: Should the date or the event start the article? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1657 days ago on 25 April 2020) Formal close needed. Thanks. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1647 days ago on 5 May 2020) Formal close needed. Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 17:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}, but anyone could have done this Guy (help!) 09:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1645 days ago on 7 May 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1615 days ago on 7 June 2020)
- {{not done}}. Not a good faith RfC. Disruptive nomination unilaterally closed and delisted.—S Marshall T/C 14:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
| Hatted sock disruption.—S Marshall T/C 14:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
So I am re-adding this request for a speedy close. I closed this after there were 8 votes against and only one for (the opener), and editors had suggested the editor put down the stick, noted it was invalid and bias, and requested it be withdrawn. The opener has refused to get the point and now reverted that close. Again, they demand the right to refuse to follow the previous consensus (and blatantly clear consensus already apparent in this one) while they run the clock on this RfC. This disruptive behaviour has to stop.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
|
(Initiated 1610 days ago on 12 June 2020) A formal close would be useful here, especially given there was canvassing happening to muddy the waters. The discussion started on June 9, and there have been no new comments in the past five days, so I think it's safe to close. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} The comments were very clear so I gave it a try and closed it. Please somebody check if I missed some step in the closure.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1617 days ago on 4 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 shootings of Oakland police officers? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}} this AfD is only just over 7 days old, just let it get closed in the normal run of things. I see no reason to prioritise it above the others listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 4 that are patiently waiting their turn. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- This was subsequently {{done}} by Spartaz (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 2096 days ago on 11 February 2019) Could an experienced editor please assess the merge proposal arguments at Talk:Upper Caste#Proposed merge with Forward caste relating to a proposal to merge Upper Caste into Forward caste. Klbrain (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1660 days ago on 22 April 2020) – this is overdue for closure, thank you! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 07:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1634 days ago on 18 May 2020) Please review this discussion. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Result is obvious; no need for formal close. — Wug·a·po·des 01:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1623 days ago on 29 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Header/main_Photo? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1617 days ago on 4 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Proposed_merge_of_George_Floyd_into_Killing_of_George_Floyd? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by El C (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1614 days ago on 7 June 2020) Would an experienced editor please review the RM? ItsPugle (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{already done}} Relisted by ~SS49~ {talk} at 11:00 (UTC) on 14 June 2020. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 06:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- And now it's closed. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1613 days ago on 8 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Should_the_lede_have_8_minutes_and_46_seconds_or_almost_9_minutes?? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. Discussion is ongoing and consensus is not clear with facts changing. Leaving it open for now in hopes that consensus will emerge. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1610 days ago on 12 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#How_is_citing_the_MPD_Policy_&_Procedure_Manual_WP:OR? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}} I'd already archived. If someone thinks it should be unarchived and receive a formal close I have no objection, but to me it didn't seem close at all. —valereee (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1609 days ago on 13 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Derek_Chauvin#Name_of_ex-wife? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1609 days ago on 13 June 2020) Needs an experienced non-involved closer. —valereee (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1605 days ago on 16 June 2020): Could an administrator please close Talk:Lady_Antebellum#Requested_move_16_June_2020 in 1 day? The closer must be careful not to rely on "Support" vs "Oppose" and take care to read the policy arguments of each responder; the wording of the move request was changed half way through so it no longer reflects the original intention of the vote. Responders throughout have made their arguments clear nevertheless, so their opinion on what to do with the page can clearly be inferred and I believe consensus can be clearly determined. Should the result be to move, the existing page at the new location should likely be moved with suffix "(disambiguation)".
Note that a simultaneous rename discussion has been started here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_21#Lady_A. The messiness of the situation is why I request that an experienced administrator close. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} both — Wug·a·po·des 01:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, thank you. Could you also take care of the lingering Talk:Lady Antebellum and move it to Talk:Lady A? There is a talk at the latter location, but it is effectively blank. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Also done; not sure how I missed that. — Wug·a·po·des 02:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, thank you. Could you also take care of the lingering Talk:Lady Antebellum and move it to Talk:Lady A? There is a talk at the latter location, but it is effectively blank. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1641 days ago on 11 May 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at the expired RfC on COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China? It is being contested by an editor. — MarkH21talk 19:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like this was done by JzG here, but they might've forgotten to mark it as done here. Tagging to confirm. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1632 days ago on 20 May 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296#RfC: PanAm Post? This RfC is not yet 30 days old, because it was subject to an accelerated schedule per WP:RSNRFC. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1638 days ago on 14 May 2020) Please review the discussion. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1638 days ago on 15 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery#RfC on Arbery's criminal history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1644 days ago on 8 May 2020) Would an experienced editor kindly assess consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RFC: First sentence? — JFG talk 09:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1635 days ago on 17 May 2020) 30 days lapsed, just need an uninvolved editor to formally close.LM2000 (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1611 days ago on 10 June 2020) A clear consensus has developed on this with just 2 editors supporting the change of the article title from Formula One to Formula 1. Due to a clear consensus and the fact that the same arguments are being repeated I proposed ending the RfC at Talk:Formula One#Proposed closure where that was supported 7:1. As an involved party I don't feel it's appropriate to end it myself given that one editor has vocalised their opposition to that proposed action. Therefore I request an uninvolved admin review this discussion for possible closure. This RfC was opened straight after an unsuccessful RM: Talk:Formula One#Requested move 1 June 2020. Concerns were raised that the discussion had not got going until several days into the RM, but this is not the case and again a majority voted for no change in article title. Mark83 (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1629 days ago on 24 May 2020) An RfC arising from a long discussion on this long-running topic recently concluded. Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education#Request for Comment about descriptions of reputation in the ledes of articles about colleges and universities? – {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1680 days ago on 3 April 2020) Can a neutral administrator or editor please resolve and close this deletion request. This file has already been reviewed and the copyright permissions have been verified even before the nomination to delete was started. The nominator did not refer to OTRS procedure (ticket #2015022810004948). The nominator speculated in the origins of the file without investigating or checking the OTRS archives.--Michael (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} Commons is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, and has its own admins and policies. Commons is quite backlogged with deletion requests, and the best I can tell you is that a Commons admin will get to it when they get to it. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1626 days ago on 26 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#BRD_-_Officers'_previous_alleged_conduct? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1621 days ago on 31 May 2020) Would an uninvolved experience editor please assess the RM consensus at Talk:Government of Victoria? Thank you! ItsPugle (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1618 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:George_Floyd_protests#Reactions_to_the_George_Floyd_protests? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Beland —valereee (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1618 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Split_proposal:_Reactions_to_the_killing_of_George_Floyd? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1615 days ago on 6 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Deletion_of_RS_and_dragging_of_Floyd's_body.? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree this probably needs an uninvolved closer. It's not complicated, but there's a new editor who needs to see someone uninvolved make the decision. —valereee (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: It seems the main (lone?) proponent has agreed that more reliable sources are still needed. Do you still think a formal close is needed? If it weren't already listed here, I'd boldly close it—even as an involved editor on the page (but not on that specific thread). However, as an admin, I'm not comfortable being an WP:INVOLVED admin closing this if you still deem a formal close necessary. Consider withdrawing this or closing it yourself. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - I am trying to get some of the threads on this page closed, so I think I will keep this open. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Now that this discussion has been archived, I would like to withdraw this request, if the powers that be are in agreement. Valereee seems to want an uninvolved closer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Jax 0677, no worries, if the new user in the thread doesn't object to the archiving of it, we can leave it. —valereee (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677 and Valereee: Merely leaving it is not necessarily a good idea, it'll remain on this page for 4368 hours (182 days, or six months). If no further action is required, and you want it to be archived sooner than that, it needs to be explicitly marked with any one of:
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved}},{{done}},{{already done}},{{not done}},{{close}}and you should also set|done=yesin the{{initiated}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677 and Valereee: Merely leaving it is not necessarily a good idea, it'll remain on this page for 4368 hours (182 days, or six months). If no further action is required, and you want it to be archived sooner than that, it needs to be explicitly marked with any one of:
- Jax 0677, no worries, if the new user in the thread doesn't object to the archiving of it, we can leave it. —valereee (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Now that this discussion has been archived, I would like to withdraw this request, if the powers that be are in agreement. Valereee seems to want an uninvolved closer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Formal closure not required. See above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - @Redrose64:, thank you very much, I learn something new every day. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1607 days ago on 14 June 2020) requested move open for now 11 days. nableezy - 16:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by El_C at 14:01 on 26 June 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 08:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1596 days ago on 25 June 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at the moving request and perform the move? Imperadors (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} - you've already closed the move request yourself. Your issue appears to be with actually performing the move itself. You can request technical help to make the move at WP:RM/TR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1621 days ago on 31 May 2020) Formal close requested.—Bagumba (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1624 days ago on 28 May 2020) – Please, this needs to be closed. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 01:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}, out of its misery.—S Marshall T/C 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1597 days ago on 24 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review or relist this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- My thoughts: there's no responses, so it's probably appropriate to relist. You could perform an uncontroversial move I suppose, but I imagine that article doesn't get any attention. There are a lot of articles like this (see Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Great Britain). There is a guideline on this (for baronets) at WP:NCBRITPEER, stating
However, if the name is ambiguous and the baronetcy is the best disambiguator from other people with that name, use the full style as the article title
. Given that there's 2 other baronets and one other MP with this name (see George Duckett), I'd imagine that guideline suggests to retain the nobility in the title. Given that article has no attention, it's probably best to notify WT:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) after it's relist, for some opinions on the matter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)- Reply - @ProcrastinatingReader:, I can not relist this due to WP:INVOLVED. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: FYI, that's actually not true. Per WP:RMCI, "If you are involved, you may solicit a closure, you may comment, you may make a move request, and you may relist the move request, etc., but you may not close a move request." (emphasis added). If it's a close call, I generally choose to not relist anyways, but if it's as clear of a relist as this, go ahead and relist! Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - @ProcrastinatingReader:, I can not relist this due to WP:INVOLVED. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}, relisted. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 06:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1651 days ago on 1 May 2020) Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47คุก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1644 days ago on 8 May 2020) Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47คุก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1619 days ago on 2 June 2020) Requesting a closure for this one - bot removed the RfC template but there isn't an overwhelming consensus in my opinion. Full disclosure, I was one of the two opposing viewpoints which led to the start of the RfC. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1606 days ago on 16 June 2020) Request a neutral editor close this merger discussion, it has been over a week since the last !vote and I doubt anyone new has anything to add. I think a consensus is pretty clear, I would close it myself per WP:MERGECLOSE but as this has been dragged to ANI (link here) a neutral close is requested.
Request the closer also close the parallel Talk:List of dog crossbreeds#Merge in poodle crossbreeds, any close of the above will void this other proposal. Cavalryman (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC).
- {{done}} and {{done}} PainProf (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1645 days ago on 7 May 2020) – Please, this needs to be closed. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 01:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ at 04:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 06:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1624 days ago on 28 May 2020)
- A short discussion at the end made it apparent that there is not enough agreement on the outcome to avoid a formal close. Thanks. (Moved here from WP:AN; hadn't realized this page existed.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. The answer to that question seemed to be: "Yes".—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1628 days ago on 25 May 2020) Would an experienced editor kindly assess consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#Mention of coronavirus in lead, Take 3? Take 4? Take 5?? — JFG talk 09:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- JFG, I don't believe formal closure is required.
- This discussion is one of brainstorming, in response to an RfC where the closer suggested the normal consensus process be followed to generate a more refined list of options. The aim of this discussion should be, and initially appeared to be, to generate suggestions of a more refined list for an upcoming RfC. That said, I believe the question is poorly formulated, and hence turned into a mess.
- Inclusion of the (a) point has distracted discussion. There may be a weak consensus to include a mention of coronavirus. 10 reasoned responses were in support. The opposes fall mainly into two camps: those who do not support agreeing to a vague notion of "something" being added (2 responses), and a second camp which actually oppose inclusion of the content (8 responses). The main reasons for opposition to inclusion are: the issue being faced globally and not being Trump-specific (5 responses), and it being too soon (4 responses).
- But the point of this discussion (per part (b) of the question, and prior RfC closure) seems to have been to decide on some options on how the coronavirus should be mentioned. Yet, only two proposals have been presented in this discussion, and neither gained sufficient support. Two previous discussions on the matter, 1 and 2, failed to reach consensus on the same issue. Neutrality and perceived bias were presented as concerns in each of the 4 discussions.
- As the point of the discussion was meant to be for brainstorming, for a future RfC, I don't see formal closure being required, other than perhaps to encourage editors to move onto a new section with a better formulated question. I leave the ultimate decision to close to someone else. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your analysis. Indeed the discussion is going nowhere. Sounds like a "no consensus" close would make sense, but I'm too involved to do it. If you're not willing to formally close, perhaps you could just copy your conclusions there as a comment. — JFG talk 06:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- My only concern here is that this isn't really an RfC; it's a brainstorming exercise, albeit one that has lost track of its purpose. I can see why closure would be helpful - to encourage editors to move to a new section which doesn't lose track of its purpose - but I'm not confident enough as to what would be the most helpful outcome to make the decision. It'd be best for someone else to make the decision on whether to close, or what else to do about it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your analysis. Indeed the discussion is going nowhere. Sounds like a "no consensus" close would make sense, but I'm too involved to do it. If you're not willing to formally close, perhaps you could just copy your conclusions there as a comment. — JFG talk 06:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1606 days ago on 15 June 2020) – This move proposal has run its course and a consensus to rename the page has been formed. However, a user who would otherwise have taken responsibility to close the discussion has elected not to, because of potential conflict-of-interest concerns. So, I'm requesting that somebody else willing to do so to please close this discussion so that the necessary changes to the article and wikilinks to said article can take place! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1604 days ago on 18 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}} archived unclosed —valereee (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1596 days ago on 25 June 2020) Could an experienced and uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at the moving request and perform the move? Imperadors (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1618 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Merger_proposal? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1593 days ago on 29 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Jax 0677, I don't think this needs a closer. The editors at the article seem to have figured it out. I was going to archive it tomorrow. —valereee (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - @Valereee:, sounds good. Hopefully people will start working on some of the other items on this page soon. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} - withdrawn, and closure not required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1585 days ago on 6 July 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Kamala_Harris#Moving_forward_with_NPOV_issues? The issue appears to be controversial and dividing. Due to media coverage, sockpuppetry and canvassing may be an issue, as it is elsewhere on the talk page. Consensus should be reviewed after 7-14 days imo, as the longer it goes on the more difficult the question posed becomes to resolve, due to time being spent on one of the options by default in the absence of consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}} If
consensus should be reviewed after 7-14 days
, why are you asking now? The discussion has been open for less than one day. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1618 days ago on 3 June 2020) Formal close requested due to specific of nature of proposal to add a warn edit filter and/or Xlinkbot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1618 days ago on 3 June 2020) Would an experienced editor kindly assess consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#Dispersion of protesters/Church Photo-op? — JFG talk 09:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1613 days ago on 8 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Rasmussen_Reports#Should_the_article,_in_WP's_own_voice,_identify_Rasmussen_Reports_as_"right_wing?"? Chetsford (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020 June 25#Caste-based prostitution
(Initiated 1596 days ago on 25 June 2020) Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020 June 25#Caste-based prostitution: Already running for more than 2 weeks (contrary to the 1 week standard) and nothing is coming out of it. NavjotSR (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}}: Already listed below at #Deletion discussions. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 02:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1713 days ago on 29 February 2020) Discussion has petered out. May require assessing consensus together with earlier discussion (linked in the RfC). Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe give it a few more days to allow people time to respond to my last comment. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} –Darkwind (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1619 days ago on 3 June 2020) Would an administrator please assess the consensus for this RfC, because it seems to me nothing new can be said regarding the issues at hand. I dunno how much should I describe the discussion, but I'll say that a large percentage of responses are based on a lack of understanding of WP policy, guidelines (MOS:ETHNICITY) and also of some plain facts. Thank you, Notrium (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Since this was posted here in a non-neutral fashion, I'll counter that some of the responses seem to be by a banned editor (WP:SOCK) and that many of them seem to miss the point of WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: so you "fix" the "non-neutrality" by accusing everybody who disagrees with you of socking? Notrium (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- This is not the place to continue the dispute. If you wish to make your comments go at the SPI, your current behaviour is just WP:BADGER everywhere... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: so you "fix" the "non-neutrality" by accusing everybody who disagrees with you of socking? Notrium (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Oshwah. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1610 days ago on 11 June 2020) It has been two weeks since the last substantial addition, but as the discussion topic indicates, this is a controversial subject. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1613 days ago on 8 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion, which has been open for more than one month? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Valereee (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1591 days ago on 30 June 2020) I'm not sure if this is the right place, but can someone please review the move discussion at Talk:London Underground C Stock#Requested move 30 June 2020? C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 17:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Recuse I have felt it necessary to revert C2A06's edits on at least two separate occasions, when they attempted to pre-empt the outcome of the discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Can someone who is uninvolved please close the discussion? C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 05:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Sceptre (talk) at 06:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC). Discussion is now located at Talk:London Underground C Stock (District Railway)#Requested move 30 June 2020. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 04:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1654 days ago on 28 April 2020) This discussion has been stale for over a month and is sitting at the top of the VPT. Could an experienced editor please close it? Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1609 days ago on 12 June 2020)
Someone wanna put a rubber stamp on this discussion make a very difficult consensus determination for this discussion? --Trialpears (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1609 days ago on 12 June 2020) Near unanimous support and no significant contributions for over a week, but given the significance of the CSD policy this would be best closed by someone uninvolved. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- See the request above for the correct location of this RFC! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1604 days ago on 17 June 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus of this DRV discussion. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} (not by me).—S Marshall T/C 09:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1587 days ago on 5 July 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#image_to_faq?? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1605 days ago on 16 June 2020) Broad consensus has been achieved, but the editor who opened the discussion feels it is better for an uninvolved editor to close it, rather than someone involved in the discussion. Could an uninvolved editor close it? Thanks in advance. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Approaching a month now with what looks like a general consensus over the question raised. It has now become running round in circles arguing about new questions. With all but one user (as far as I can see) arguing for a close.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Honestly, this is a dead lock; obviously, slave traders can't be philanthropists, no matter how much money they donate to charities. Nevertheless, I have suggested a way out this impasse if all involved are willing to invoke WP:NPOV. (Then again, my suggestion could be completely wrong & inappropriate.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1592 days ago on 30 June 2020) Discussion has died down in the last few days. Fairly contentious discussion before that. Calidum 15:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by another editor. Calidum 18:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1581 days ago on 11 July 2020) Requesting technical closure of fatally flawed Rfc: non-neutral wording, no independent statement of Rfc question, aspersions about another editor. Mathglot (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. I've summarily closed the RfC as requested, but I've also reverted the disputed edit and restored the stable version.—S Marshall T/C 22:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1640 days ago on 12 May 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#RfC: Apple Daily? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 14:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1602 days ago on 19 June 2020) I would like an administrator review, close, and summarise the discussion as edit warring over the disputed material is still ongoing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Morbidthoughts, it has been closed by a non-admin it seems. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, that alone shouldn't be a reason to overturn or disregard the close. If the closer has erred, people can discuss with them or, if that fails, request review at AN. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- This request was made before the non-admin close. I do not have any objections to the NAC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1634 days ago on 19 May 2020) – Please, this needs to be closed. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 01:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1703 days ago on 10 March 2020): Can a neutral editor please close this RfC? A bot removed the RfC template a while ago but the discussion was never formally resolved. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Although this has been opened for several months, it might be best to wait one more week; another editor pointed out that this would impact several other articles - other campuses of the same university - so I've just dropped a note about this RfC on the relevant Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I tried to close it, but found that an NC outcome wasn't ideal so I !voted instead. Anyone else want to try? Hobit (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus still after over four months with a recommendation that other dispute resolution venues be considered. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1639 days ago on 13 May 2020) Can an uninvolved and politically neutral editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Project Veritas#RfC on verifiability in ACORN section? I would close it myself, but I am not doing so because of my COI. Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with a clear consensus on statements 1, 3, and 4 and a rough consensus on statement 2 that the language challenged is not accepted. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1579 days ago on 13 July 2020) WP:SNOW consensus to delete, was relisted unnecessarily. The relisting can be undone, right? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1597 days ago on 24 June 2020) Open since 24 June. Discussion at Talk:Apple Silicon#Requested move 24 June 2020 but also discussion on the page at Talk:Apple Silicon#Large gap in this talk page's edit history and Talk:Apple Silicon#Unrequested move 27 June 2020. Needs someone to adjudicate and close it. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Both the actual discussion and the meta-discussion under this RM have been rather touchy. (See also the related section, Unrequested move 27 June 2020.) I think it would be prudent to have an uninvolved, impartial observer handle the closing. Thanks, — Jaydiem (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, there was an editor who didn't understand the process that wanted to stop it and re-start it. Thankfully that didn't happen, as it's already been going on for over a month as it is. Unhelpfully, a non-admin decided to relist the discussion despite the consensus being pretty clear, which extended the process an additional week.. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1592 days ago on 29 June 2020) This is pretty complex, all parties agree there needs to be a change but the RfC may need to be closed as needing further discussion. Needs an experienced closer. —valereee (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{close}} – wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1590 days ago on 2 July 2020) Was no clear consensus on all issues in the lengthy discussion which had the participation of 18 people, close requested by Pyxis Solitary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Also see this and this. Given that the majority of participants stated that it's reliable, with an emphasis on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, I disagree with the "no consensus" assertion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- I questioned the archiving of a non-closed discussion wherein so many editors participated and Hemiauchenia offered to request a closure on my behalf.
However, as for "no clear consensus
": I do not agree.
Not including the OP, 18 editors commented. (The OP asked about the "reliability of AfterEllen news articles" and about "using it as a source to provide information about a relationship on BLP articles" -- but did not get involved in giving their opinion on it being either reliable or not generally reliable.) I counted 9 editors who find the source reliable; 4 that don't; 1 that sees its reliability as a case-by-case basis; 1 as "marginally reliable"; 1 that does not like pro/con determinations but whose opinion about it was overall favorable; 1 whose comment was about the OP - not about the source; and 1 who responded to a comment - but provided no other opinion. All who consider it reliable have WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in common. It's clear that antipathy towards the website is based on its coverage of trans-related issues, with comments such as "not reliable on trans gender issues" and "source should only be used for providing opinions on pop-culture matters, not on transgender people."
In Wikipedia, for sources considered biased in any area and for any biased statements made by any source there is WP:BIASED and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- My point about "No consensus" is that there was no clear consensus related to all issues, if the consensus was unanimous then there would be no point formally asking for a close. Ultimately it is for the closer to assess the discussion, rather than simply relitigate it here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- You stated that "if the consensus was unanimous then there would be no point formally asking for a close." And yet, for RfCs and move discussions, formal closes are usually done even if the matter is a WP:SNOW case. They are usually made even if every person voted something like "support." Given Pyxis Solitary's comment above, it's clear that she didn't feel that a close was needed because she thought there was no consensus. All that stated, this was not an RfC. So other than editors seeing a closing statement about most editors considering AfterEllen reliable but that it should be used with context and ideally not as the sole source for a contentious BLP matter, there is no point in having a formal close. That is clear by this discussion I pointed to. It's not like AfterEllen is going to be listed at WP:RSP after this one formal close...unless the matter is reconsidered. Apparently, it needs at least one more discussion after this, although I don't see what would change in a year or two, or a few months from now. The only thing I could see changing is more "not reliable" votes based purely on ideological stances. WP:Consensus is clear that consensus on Wikipedia is not about unanimity
(unless it's something like a WP:RfA). It's about the strength of the arguments. And the strength of the arguments in this case is clearly with AfterEllen being reliable in context, such as commenting on issues that concern or affect lesbians, and especially with WP:In-text attribution when it's the best option. There is no need for "clear consensus related to all issues." That is why WP:CONTEXTMATTERS was cited by multiple editors. The "reliability as a case-by-case basis" and "marginally reliable" votes are still "it's reliable" votes. But oh well. We'll see if a fair close comes out of this. Would rather not go to WP:Close review. - To everyone, please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- You stated that "if the consensus was unanimous then there would be no point formally asking for a close." And yet, for RfCs and move discussions, formal closes are usually done even if the matter is a WP:SNOW case. They are usually made even if every person voted something like "support." Given Pyxis Solitary's comment above, it's clear that she didn't feel that a close was needed because she thought there was no consensus. All that stated, this was not an RfC. So other than editors seeing a closing statement about most editors considering AfterEllen reliable but that it should be used with context and ideally not as the sole source for a contentious BLP matter, there is no point in having a formal close. That is clear by this discussion I pointed to. It's not like AfterEllen is going to be listed at WP:RSP after this one formal close...unless the matter is reconsidered. Apparently, it needs at least one more discussion after this, although I don't see what would change in a year or two, or a few months from now. The only thing I could see changing is more "not reliable" votes based purely on ideological stances. WP:Consensus is clear that consensus on Wikipedia is not about unanimity
- My point about "No consensus" is that there was no clear consensus related to all issues, if the consensus was unanimous then there would be no point formally asking for a close. Ultimately it is for the closer to assess the discussion, rather than simply relitigate it here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- "
Given Pyxis Solitary's comment above, it's clear that she didn't feel that a close was needed because she thought there was no consensus.
" Wut? Are you saying that I thought there was no consensus and therefore didn't feel a close was needed -- or that I thought there was a consensus and therefore it needed a close? Your wording can be taken either way. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)- I am saying that you don't agree with the "no consensus" rationale, like you clearly stated above. As for whether or not you felt a close was needed, text above states "close requested by Pyxis Solitary" and "offered to request a closure on my behalf." I'm guessing you wanted/want a close. If not that, it was implied. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just wanted it to be made crystal clear that Pyxis Solitary sees favorable consensus in the majority of opinions. (And yakking that results in nada is a waste of valuable time.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am saying that you don't agree with the "no consensus" rationale, like you clearly stated above. As for whether or not you felt a close was needed, text above states "close requested by Pyxis Solitary" and "offered to request a closure on my behalf." I'm guessing you wanted/want a close. If not that, it was implied. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- "
- {{Done}} --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1605 days ago on 16 June 2020) Please close the RfC regarding the first sentence of articles about populations of Panthera tigris tigris. < Atom (Anomalies) 01:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1586 days ago on 6 July 2020) When the time is right, please close the RfC regarding the 2020 United States presidential election infobox. It should be able to run its natural course, but given its high profile it would be good if it could be closed quickly once it has had sufficient participation, been open for a sufficient time, and is otherwise "ready" for a close. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 2022 days ago on 26 April 2019) This is my first time posting here, so my apologies if it's not appropriate. But could someone please close the merge discussion at Talk:Gina_Rippon#Merge Bibliography? It looks uncontroversial. I was inclined to do it myself, but thought perhaps not given I'd already shown my support for it and didn't know if a neutral person had to close it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1605 days ago on 16 June 2020) This DRV is in need of close by someone familiar with FFD. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Graeme Bartlett.—S Marshall T/C 11:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1596 days ago on 25 June 2020) Could an experienced editor do this one too, please?—S Marshall T/C 13:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Mazca.—S Marshall T/C 21:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 3305 days ago on 21 October 2015) Could someone finally close this 5-year-old discussion that already reached a consensus? The apparently "still on-going" discussion is being used by involved editors from back then as a pretext for reverting any addition of an infobox to Jean Sibelius by new users even 5 years later. --MiniCacti (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Old, unclosed discussions expire over time, and that discussion has languished unclosed for five years. I don't think closing a five-year-old discussion now is the right way to end that edit war. Maybe an uninvolved sysop will step in and restore order, though.—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I started a new discussion - the 2015 discussion is certainly stale by now, and there is little chance that an infobox can be added without new consensus, judging by the recent reverts. Hopefully this helps. If I made things worse, I apologize in advance. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1566 days ago on 25 July 2020) Discussion of possible page moves from Hanging Gardens of Babylon to Hanging Gardens and Hanging Gardens of Nineveh. Could somebody non-involved review and determine whether appropriate to close, please? The Parson's Cat (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1596 days ago on 25 June 2020) I don't have very much experience with closing, so I am hoping to learn more about the process. Listing here for experience and any commentary. From my end, it seems as if there is no clear consensus, and the discussion has strayed, so what happens? Status quo?―Biochemistry🙴❤ 18:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- There are only really 3 participants here, with mostly a back and forth between 2 people and discussion straying quite a lot. There's the dispute resolution processes to consider, and you also have the option of starting an RfC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Thank you for your assistance.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 21:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}}―Biochemistry🙴❤ 15:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1564 days ago on 28 July 2020) – Discussion of possible page moves from Ancient Chinese clothing to Hanfu, Could somebody non-involved review and determine whether appropriate to close, please?芄蘭 (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} –
Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 03:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1570 days ago on 21 July 2020) Discussion handled too many subthreads, thereby confusing and mixing up proposals and arguments. It was concluded to close-as-is ('no consensus, no changes, no prejudice') by most participants, so as to make way for a new, better formulated proposal. (Maybe this should be called 'procedural close'?). -DePiep (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: this is a WP:SNOWBALL, got lost in bureaucracy. -DePiep (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1586 days ago on 5 July 2020) Please provide a natural closing.Casprings (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1598 days ago on 24 June 2020) A multi-part RFC; I have closed the easy sub-parts, but Q2 and Q3 still need to be closed. Thanks, Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1587 days ago on 4 July 2020) Request for a close since the RfC template expired and there seems to be no further discussion for over a week now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1627 days ago on 25 May 2020) Would highly appreciate someone kind enough to lend their time to assess closing this discussion. JustBeCool (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - MrX 🖋 19:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1622 days ago on 30 May 2020) Given that it is the second RfC in a year on the same issue, it is best to have an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Hzh (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - MrX 🖋 13:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1619 days ago on 2 June 2020) Could an uninvolved editor evaluate the consensus regarding the proposal below? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - MrX 🖋 14:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1617 days ago on 4 June 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#More nobility fansites? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 14:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - MrX 🖋 14:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1615 days ago on 6 June 2020) Formal close requested. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - MrX 🖋 19:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1605 days ago on 16 June 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor or admin please formally close this RfC? There is now a new discussion (the fourth in three months) relitigating a proposal closely related to the RfC at Talk:Taiwan#First sentence. Thanks in advance! — MarkH21talk 06:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - MrX 🖋 20:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1605 days ago on 16 June 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#RfC: Crowdfunders? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 12:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - MrX 🖋 20:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1655 days ago on 27 April 2020) Closure requested due to inactivity. –Noha307 (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - MrX 🖋 17:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1604 days ago on 17 June 2020) An administrator to close this recently expired RfC is requested. The subsections below it, and the discussion above it, should likely be included in the closure. Crossroads -talk- 18:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - MrX 🖋 18:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1602 days ago on 19 June 2020) Too contentious to easily close. PainProf (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment: I've opened an actual RFC just now as it was only a talk page discussion. I suggest waiting until any discussion from that is finished. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - MrX 🖋 11:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1598 days ago on 23 June 2020) Would an experienced editor or admin please close this discussion which has been ongoing since January but only RfC'd over the past month. Discussion has been dry since July 2. Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - MrX 🖋 12:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1589 days ago on 2 July 2020) Formal close requested for inclusion in Perennial sources list, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - MrX 🖋 13:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1588 days ago on 3 July 2020)
Experienced editor requested to close this RfC. Crossroads -talk- 23:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - MrX 🖋 15:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1588 days ago on 3 July 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor or admin please formally close this RfC? Thanks in advance! — MarkH21talk 04:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - MrX 🖋 17:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1584 days ago on 7 July 2020) Please close the RfC regarding the launch cost of the Space Launch System. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- After only 12 days? RfCs usually run for 30 days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to give Jadebenn a few more days to reply to me (if he wants); we are having a long-form back and forth at the bottom of the RfC. I spent a ton of time going deep into every source we have there. Leijurv (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Leijurv: Sorry about not getting back to you quickly. I still plan to, but I kind of need a break from all this debating. It's a lot better now than it was before, but I'm nearly burnt-out. To the closers here: Can you at least keep it up for a week or so longer? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 21:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Please close the RfC for SLS Launch costs. Discussion reached a clear conclusion over a week ago with no further commentary or evidence since then. SandowTheHeretic (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, the "Closed RfC" template has already been added, the last comment was July 22 in which all 3 remaining editors agreed, and the change was applied to the article on August 2. I think this can be delisted? Leijurv (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Apparently closed by the consent of the participants. - MrX 🖋 18:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1581 days ago on 10 July 2020) The RfC "elapsed" weeks ago according to its template, and has recently been canvassed off-wiki (see the RfC for the link re that), so I suspect closing it and judging consensus before things go too far south is advisable... (formal closure is needed because WP:RSP currently has only a placeholder message about this source, and will need to be updated to reflect whatever the consensus is.) -sche (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- The word "elapsed" does not come from the
{{rfc}}template, but from{{RSN RfC status}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)- {{Done}} - MrX 🖋 20:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1578 days ago on 14 July 2020) Closure on unclear consensusManabimasu (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - MrX 🖋 20:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1583 days ago on 9 July 2020) A summary of the discussion along with the outcome would be helpful. — Wug·a·po·des 00:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} - MrX 🖋 15:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Articles for deletion/Robert Trump (2nd nomination)
Looking for speedy closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Trump (2nd nomination) the item is time sensitive as it's currently under consideration for In The News and the "recent deaths" section tends to turn over pretty quickly --LaserLegs (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's been closed (by another admin). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by BD2412 (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1573 days ago on 18 July 2020) Please review this RfC for closure and provide a formal closing summary. Thanks. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Why do you want it closing after such a short time? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redrose64 Because there have been no new responses for several days. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1575 days ago on 16 July 2020) – please, this move review needs to be closed. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 23:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Amakuru. starship.paint (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1564 days ago on 28 July 2020) Discussion of possible page moves from Ancient Chinese clothing to Hanfu, could somebody non-involved review and close it, please?芄蘭 (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Amakuru (talk) at 18:19 on 22 August 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 23:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1607 days ago on 14 June 2020) Formal close requested. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 2012 days ago on 6 May 2019) Could an uninvolved editor please review Talk:Rectifier#Filter capacitor → Rectifier#Rectifier output smoothing, a proposal in its current form to merge Filter capacitor into Applications of capacitors. Klbrain (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Klbrain, {{done}}. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Talk:1943 Gibraltar Liberator AL523 crash#Proposed merge with Władysław Sikorski's death controversy
(Initiated 1912 days ago on 14 August 2019) Could an uninvolved editor please review Talk:1943 Gibraltar Liberator AL523 crash#Proposed merge with Władysław Sikorski's death controversy, a proposal to merge Władysław Sikorski's death controversy into 1943 Gibraltar Liberator AL523 crash#Incident investigation and controversy. Klbrain (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, an editor has recently requested additional input from WikiProjects. This can be relisted if there is still no clear consensus after some more time has passed. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1687 days ago on 27 March 2020) It was difficult getting feedback on whether to merge three pages together due to repeating the same information. Would an experienced editor assist in closing the discussion? Thank you. lullabying (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, an editor has recently requested additional input from WikiProjects. This can be relisted if there is still no clear consensus after some more time has passed. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1683 days ago on 30 March 2020) Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Panzer Aces/1 - No new comments since April 2020, no new comments on the article the entire time. As nominator for reassessment, I'd would be grateful for a close on this. Thanks in advance. Mujinga (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1692 days ago on 21 March 2020) May I request for a neutral admin or other uninvolved editors to review this discussion (which also included a renewed discussion began by me under Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Philippines-related articles#Renewed discussion on articles on uniquely-named municipalities)? The whole discussion was began in late March, while the renewed discussion was began in late June. Can someone also assess the consensus of the discussion? Thanks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: the listing editor recently made a comment at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#One_question suggesting that a consensus has been reached, but requesting help with implementing the close. Please see that section before attempting to take any action. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Since the section Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippines-related articles#Revisiting the comma convention for article titles of municipalities hasn't been edited anew since June 26, with little to no challenge, and that the page mover at Talk:Baliuag#Requested move 22 June 2020 hinted about the consensus at MOSPHIL talk when Baliuag, Bulacan was moved to Baliuag on July 29, I might close this thread anytime from now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
{{close}} closing this thread as per my statement above 01:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1615 days ago on 6 June 2020)
An administrator is requested to close this RfC.
FYI, since it is not clear, it was in fact an RfC when opened on 6 June, [2] was archived by a bot 12 days later on 18 June, [3] was delisted as an RfC by another bot that same day while in the archives, [4] and then was unarchived, [5] having never been relisted as an RfC as far as I can tell. Crossroads -talk- 06:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 17:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1617 days ago on 5 June 2020) Would any uninvolved editor be able to evaluate and close this merge proposal? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1608 days ago on 13 June 2020) I think there is a rough consensus, but since it concerns a change to a prominent guideline I think a formal close from an uninvolved editor would be better. – Joe (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1614 days ago on 7 June 2020) Formal close requested due to the highly controversial nature of the topic and multiple inconclusive past RfCs. — Tartan357 (Talk) 08:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note - This RfC followed two other main RfCs on this matter a few months earlier, which are discussed in this latest RfC. The older RfCs recently archived. The first one, initiated by MrX, can be found here. The second one, initiated by Smith0124, can be found here. Hope that helps.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The RfC begins with
With this RfC, I’m hoping we can resolve the issue of infobox inclusion criteria, which remain hotly debated for this and other primary elections, such as the Republican primaries.
, and statesWhich of the following criteria should be used to determine which candidates are to be included in infoboxes on United States presidential primary election pages, including those for ongoing elections?
, which implies the scope of the RfC to be larger than just the Democratic Party primaries. In which case, has this discussion been properly advertised to other parties which may have an interest? I would imagine the topic to be within the scope of, and of particular interest to, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums and 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries (it seems there was a similar separate RfC for the Republican primaries). I don't think there has been the proper advertisement to assume consensus for the broad change requested in the RfC, but consensus for a local change can be ascertained. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The RfC begins with
- @ProcrastinatingReader: That's fine. Can you go ahead and close it with the local consensus? My intent was to advertise it to a wider audience, but I decided not to when it quickly got wrapped up in an ongoing argument between two editors. It started to become difficult to discuss anything other than the issue directly at hand. No discussion was had at any point regarding infoboxes on other election pages, so I'll go ahead and strike those parts of my question. — Tartan357 (Talk) 21:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader, I concur re Tartan's edits indicating limited scope, so it now seems to be properly set for close. Humanengr (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Just to clarify for any closers reading this, I don't plan to be the closer here, so someone else should feel free to close. Aside from my comments above I have some further ones just to highlight some problems here and aid another closer, at the WP:AN discussion that was started regarding this request for closure. See comments here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 19:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1631 days ago on 22 May 2020) Requesting a non-involved admin close to evaluate policy-based arguments. petrarchan47คุก 22:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is an archived discussion. Perhaps if it requires a formal close, it should be unarchived for that purpose.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- A formal, uninvolved admin close is required. It is a highly contentious subject with heated, extended discussion. I've moved a copy of the RfC from archives to the talk page here. petrarchan47คุก 16:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Petrarchan47: as a result of that, there are now two copies of the discussion, because you didn't remove it from Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 13#RFC: "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header. When people look for it in future, which of the two should they take as correct? Also, by wrapping Talk:Joe Biden#RfC Awaiting Closure ("Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header) in both
{{hat}}/{{hab}}and{{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}}, you are essentially saying "stay the heck out, no formal closure is required here". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)- I've simply collapsed the live version now. But that doesn't solve the double threads. There was no way to undo the archived version to my knowledge. Any suggestions? petrarchan47คุก 14:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
There was no way to undo the archived version
- why not? Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 13 is not protected. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)- We should be good now, thanks for the help. petrarchan47คุก 22:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Petrarchan47: You still have two copies of the RfC, one in the archive and one in the talk page itself, which explicitly says that the RfC is still open and that comments may still be left. This will only cause confusion. If you want comments to be left, you must remove the one from archive 13; if you don't, you should remove the one from the main talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- We should be good now, thanks for the help. petrarchan47คุก 22:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've simply collapsed the live version now. But that doesn't solve the double threads. There was no way to undo the archived version to my knowledge. Any suggestions? petrarchan47คุก 14:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Petrarchan47: as a result of that, there are now two copies of the discussion, because you didn't remove it from Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 13#RFC: "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header. When people look for it in future, which of the two should they take as correct? Also, by wrapping Talk:Joe Biden#RfC Awaiting Closure ("Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header) in both
- {{done}} Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- A formal, uninvolved admin close is required. It is a highly contentious subject with heated, extended discussion. I've moved a copy of the RfC from archives to the talk page here. petrarchan47คุก 16:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1601 days ago on 20 June 2020) The RfC needs an uninvolved editor/admin to close it formally as it is contentious and may otherwise keep being brought up in the talk page. Hzh (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1537 days ago on 23 August 2020) The vibe I received from the discussion was that of don't fix what isn't broken. Performing the move as discussed would gain no benefit, and I am comfortable with the not move result of this discussion. Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by King of Hearts (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1616 days ago on 5 June 2020) Formal close requested for television series based RFC. -- /Alex/21 13:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1540 days ago on 20 August 2020)
Could any uninvolved editor please evaluate and close. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- This wasn't even a proper RFC, but an unformatted discussion - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think what Peter is after is someone to close the clarification request and summarise what the current status is of The Mail on Sunday. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am only after someone to close the discussion of your clarification request. WP:CLOSE does not require that the discussion be an RfC or be formatted differently, and this question is not in the RfCs section of this (Requests for closure) page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think what Peter is after is someone to close the clarification request and summarise what the current status is of The Mail on Sunday. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is likely moot - the discussion has already been archived - David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1607 days ago on 14 June 2020) Formal close requested. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1588 days ago on 3 July 2020)
This discussion needs to be closed by an administrator, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323#Close challenge. Crossroads -talk- 19:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1554 days ago on 6 August 2020) - related to a controversial topic, a formal close would be good. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} (non-admin closure), by the way. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1941 days ago on 16 July 2019) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:List of Fast N' Loud episodes#Split? Also, on a side note, there is a complete lack of split/move/history attribution for Lynn Anderson discography, Lynn Anderson singles discography and Lynn Anderson albums discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: The Lynn Anderson issues are nothing to do with any of the threads at Talk:List of Fast N' Loud episodes or its subject page. It's also nothing to do with this page, which is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Please do not put multiple unrelated requests under the same heading; this is not the first time that you have done this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - Is anyone planning to close this still open task? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} That'll teach me to close discussions requiring tagging/detagging 30 pages! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1854 days ago on 11 October 2019) Could an uninvolved editor please consider the consensus to merge Bhartiya Gau Raksha Dal into Cow vigilante violence in India, being discussed at Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India#Proposed merge with Bhartiya Gau Raksha Dal. Klbrain (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 0 days ago on 8 November 2024) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 10:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Lee Vilenski. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1582 days ago on 9 July 2020) – please, this move review needs to be closed. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 23:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1650 days ago on 2 May 2020) Controversial topic, needs a neutral closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Steve Bannon#Addition of Aug 2020 arrest to lead combined with WP:BLPN#Should the arrest of a notable person be in the lead of their BLP -> Steve Bannon
(Initiated 1540 days ago on 20 August 2020) This discussion spans the article talk page and WP:BLPN, and includes comments from the same editors on both pages. There have been more than 40 comments and discussion has dwindled. Would an uninvolved admin or experienced editor please close this? Thank you. - MrX 🖋 10:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Two discussions concerning pretty much the same matter, both started by Springee (talk · contribs), the second only 106 minutes after the first. See WP:MULTI, WP:TALKFORK and WP:FORUMSHOP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Please be careful about casting aspersions. I disagree that bringing the discussion to BLPN was forum shopping. The question asked was significant as I tried to asked absent the context of a controversial BLP subject. It was also important to try to make sure this wasn't simply a local consensus of editors who watched the page. Springee (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Springee: You have created two parallel discussions, which now have some participants in common but not all; I am sure that many of those who participated in just one were unaware of the existence of the other discussion. The BLPN discussion (created second) has no link whatsoever to Talk:Steve Bannon, whether to the discussion itself or to the page in general; the article talk page discussion has a single link to the BLPN one, not added by yourself but by Atsme (talk · contribs) at 22:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC). Both discussions are now quite lengthy, and I was not the first to call WP:FORUMSHOP on this. Having started the discussion st Talk:Steve Bannon, it would have been quite proper (and well within WP:MULTI) to place a notice at WP:BLPN which linked to the one at Talk:Steve Bannon. That's a notice, not an invitation to run two discussions simultaneously. Templates such as
{{please see}}and{{fyi}}are available for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)- I understand that some of the editors who were one the other side of the contentious discussion claimed forum shopping. However, my BLPN question was a general policy question. It did evolve into a largely Bannon specific question but it didn't start as such. Sometimes it is helpful to separate the specific content question from the more general question of generic policy. A number of editors did answer the generic question if policy. The same editor who called forum shopping also is trying to get ONUS changed after a related discussion regarding ONUS and adding the disputed content. Note that at the end of this I proposed a RfC to put the question in one place, on the article talk page. This was in part because despite the disputed consensus no editors had taken the initiative to get an independent review. It also would have made a clear question and a clean discussion to evaluate. I'm ok with this closing method instead as I was there primary concern was an independent assessment. Still, a RfC could have resulted in a cleaner discussion especially as some arguments became more refined over time or might be less relevant as the body text changed. However I understand the argument that a RfC would generally prevent closure for at least 30 days. That is part of why I proposed first vs just acted. It gave others an opportunity to look for alternative closure. Springee (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Springee: You have created two parallel discussions, which now have some participants in common but not all; I am sure that many of those who participated in just one were unaware of the existence of the other discussion. The BLPN discussion (created second) has no link whatsoever to Talk:Steve Bannon, whether to the discussion itself or to the page in general; the article talk page discussion has a single link to the BLPN one, not added by yourself but by Atsme (talk · contribs) at 22:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC). Both discussions are now quite lengthy, and I was not the first to call WP:FORUMSHOP on this. Having started the discussion st Talk:Steve Bannon, it would have been quite proper (and well within WP:MULTI) to place a notice at WP:BLPN which linked to the one at Talk:Steve Bannon. That's a notice, not an invitation to run two discussions simultaneously. Templates such as
- Please be careful about casting aspersions. I disagree that bringing the discussion to BLPN was forum shopping. The question asked was significant as I tried to asked absent the context of a controversial BLP subject. It was also important to try to make sure this wasn't simply a local consensus of editors who watched the page. Springee (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is a heated discussion with a good number of editors weighing in on both sides. It seems far from ready for closure. MrX claims discussion has dwindled, and he is using this close request as justification to forgo a proposed RfC, which he opposes. However, the comments are still incoming. Here is the activity since the above request was made. I would suggest an uninvolved experienced editor or admin help us decide how to best handle this situation. petrarchan47คุก 16:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- This topic has been beaten into the ground and is ready for closure. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{Close}} yesterday. I had not seen this request as I only occasionally monitor this board, but I was aware of and had been following the parallel discussions. I wasn't ready to call this on August 27, but the discussions had been quiet for a week when I closed it. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1577 days ago on 14 July 2020) – please, this move review needs to be closed. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 23:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} – wbm1058 (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1550 days ago on 10 August 2020)
The consensus is (IMO) pretty clear, and – as the initiator already wrote on 11 August – : "At this point perhaps a speedy close is in order...dont see what more could be said." I concur in this assessment (except I'd call it a "snow close"); prolonging the discussion seems pointless.
The reason why I am asking for an uninvolved editor to close this RfC is that the discussion became somewhat heated at times. --Lambiam 21:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Lambiam, I have reviewed the discussion as an uninvolved administrator and I am inclined to let it run for the full 30 days before closure. WP:SNOW should generally be used in exceptional and overwhelming circumstances; see Wikipedia:Snowball clause § What the snowball clause is not. Because this is an RfC on the status of a page as an official guideline, and because there is neither truly overwhelming support nor exceptional circumstances, I recommend waiting the full 30 days before closure. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kevin. Might now be a good time for a (normal) formal closure? The expired RfC tag has been removed and the last contribution to the discussion was 16 days ago. --Lambiam 18:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1561 days ago on 30 July 2020) Would an uninvolved editor or admin please assist in closing the discussion? Even with only 3 editors voted in agreement, the proposal will affect approximately 250 pages in a particular category and its subcategories. I wouldn't mind a relist as well but there has been no other responses even after sending a follow up notifications on the various wikiproject's talk pages some three weeks later after the initial notification. – robertsky (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1559 days ago on 1 August 2020) Formal close requested due to the controversial nature of the topic. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 13:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1558 days ago on 3 August 2020) Somewhat polarised response on this one, requesting an experienced closer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1552 days ago on 9 August 2020) Archived without a close. Requesting a close. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1557 days ago on 3 August 2020) Manabimasu (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Acebulf (talk) at 22:43 on 11 September 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 03:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1557 days ago on 3 August 2020) Manabimasu (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1535 days ago on 25 August 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Just came here to add this, but it's already here. I was going to request an administrator, however. I'd say this one is the most important of all the discussions from that page listed here. Crossroads -talk- 03:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1539 days ago on 21 August 2020) This very contentious discussion is starting to wind down. It was highly active initially, but few new points have been raised in the past few days. Still, it would be alright to wait a little longer if that seemed appropriate. Whoever takes this on, be aware that you will very likely receive messages. I strongly suggest requesting closing arguments before coming to a decision. Ender and Peter 21:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Closing arguments? Isn’t there more than enough in that discussion for a closer to determine consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Close}} --Bsherr (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1526 days ago on 3 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1555 days ago on 5 August 2020) uninvolved close would be best imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Second, the discussion has been archived and has thus died a natural death, but still needs a formal close. Can now be found in the archives at [6]. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1922 days ago on 4 August 2019) Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus for a merge between Profession of faith (Christianity) and Act of Faith (Christian) at Talk:Profession of faith (Christianity)#Merger proposal. Klbrain (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1600 days ago on 21 June 2020) Discussion has died down and this needs closing but its not clear-cut enough for me to close it myself as proposer. SpinningSpark 09:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1610 days ago on 12 June 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 169#Left sidebar update follow-up? The discussion is the follow-up to the items that the closers of WP:SIDEBAR20 identified as needing further discussion to reach consensus, so the initial discussions there may be taken into account alongside the pump discussion. The matters under discussion are the new editor introduction page as well as various tooltips. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor evaluate the consensus regarding this discussion? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1599 days ago on 22 June 2020) Close requested by two users at Talk:Graham_Linehan#Closing_the_RFC, to whose voices I will add my own, as there have been no new comments since 11 July. -sche (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1545 days ago on 15 August 2020) Please kindly review this contentious move request! Thanks! Melmann 18:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Vpab15 (talk) at 21:11 on 22 September 2020 (UTC) – P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 03:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1586 days ago on 5 July 2020) - requesting an uninvolved editor to gauge consensus and close this discussion. starship.paint (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1534 days ago on 27 August 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: - (1) I don't think that this discussion produced any clear result. It hardly had a clear direction either. (2) the article seems to already mention the details of the shooting, so in my opinion, no closure is needed. I think this request can be archived, what do you think? starship.paint (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - I am trying to get the talk page size down, so if it either gets archived or closed, that is totally fine. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} - the discussion has come to a natural close - archival. starship.paint (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - I am trying to get the talk page size down, so if it either gets archived or closed, that is totally fine. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1526 days ago on 3 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by BD2412 T at 18:35 on 22 September 2020 (UTC) – P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 04:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)