Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 21
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
This discussion forum has an extensive backlog where the oldest active entry was started on 10 June 2015 ({{Initiated|10 June 2015}}), and at the time if me posting this request, the page has 163 discussions that have yet to be closed, several started over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please update {{Initiated}} below as the backlog is (slowly) taken care of.--Aervanath (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3453 days ago on 13 June 2015)
- About 155 discussions still to be closed.
Since this discussion board is now deprecated, and there will be no new discussions opened there, I would appreciate some help clearing the backlog.--Aervanath (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- I just "did" about 3 of them. For the ones where I believe could really use more discussion, I've been relisting them on WP:FFD (but not in huge droves as that would overwhelm the daily subpages over there.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- We're getting close to having all these discussions closed. NFCR is now down to 100 open discussions. Also, in November, NFCR was shut down to new requests, directing new requests to WP:FFD; when all of the discussions are closed from NFCR, the noticeboard will be closed and marked as historical. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Finally
Done. Thanks to everyone who helped clear the backlog. Steel1943 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an administrator please assess the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Martin Hogbin? Thanks, --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion is now located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278#Martin Hogbin. This is an ongoing issue. Can it be de-archived and evaluated? --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Take it to ArbCom. It's not going to happen here. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done JzG, we are not going to bother the poor Arbs with this. Not yet anyway. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Take it to ArbCom. It's not going to happen here. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking for an admin to close this move request, because of the sensitive nature of it. It's worth noting that a few new or little-used accounts/IPs have commented on both sides. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done by User:Drmies. --GRuban (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Emily Dickinson#Emily Dickinson's main picture (Initiated 3233 days ago on 19 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Done Robert McClenon (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds#Request for comments (Initiated 3236 days ago on 16 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Done - No consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_24#Category:Mandarin-language_singers_of_China
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church#RFC: Reliable sources (Initiated 3251 days ago on 1 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would an admin please assess the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Boomerang: Proposed Topic Ban for Krzyhorse22 and close the discussion as they see fit. Thanks, WCMemail 12:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
A consensus has been reached. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- A consensus at an RFC is the result of 30 days of discussion. The bot continues to invite editors. There is no need for an early close. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Open for 25 days. The discussion has petered out, and there is a clear consensus that it can be closed now. But this is a highly controversial issue, and has been the subject of numerous previous requests. Looking for an experienced, careful, and brave admin to close the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:StAnselm, I think you need to butter any prospective admin up a bit more. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- StAnselm, help me out here. I have it 15-11, if I skip the intermediary polls, one of which I closed and the others I have yet to assess. Oppose: In ictu oculi, StAnselm, Polentarion, Tiggerjay, StevenJ81, JudeccaXIII, Simon Burchell, Graeme Bartlett, InsertCleverPhraseHere, BobKilcoyne, agr (ArnoldReinhold), Srnec, HokieRNB, H. Humbert, Amakuru. Support: Theroadislong, First Light, Doug Weller, Moxy, Hy Brasil, RGloucester, Rwenonah, Scjessey, Jonathan Tweet, Jess, jps. Note: I have friends and lovers on either side, so I think I can be unfair to both sides. I'm not saying, by the way, that I'll actually finish this: it's a beast. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, you missed Basileias as an oppose in the main discussion. But I found the opinion poll quite confusing, and I some editors voted only in it, so Darkfrog24, 172.58.225.118, StevenJ81, Deryck C, Roches, Dmcq, Dweller, and Maher-shalal-hashbaz should be added to the "opposes", with Leonhard Fortier, Röbin Liönheart, Khajidha, James, Dimadick, Keahapana and AIRcorn added to the supports. Also, First Light is clearly an oppose rather than a support. StAnselm (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's why I asked you, to copyedit. Thanks. Yeah, I did not look/count in those sections yet. I have some doubts about that IP, and will ping User:Bishonen. Wait, I just did. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- I see that I left out Martin Hogbin as well: I failed to copy him and Basileias from my list in Notepad. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Done by Mike Cline--Aervanath (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
After days of recycling the same arguments over and over, it looks like there is a sort of compromise everyone would agree with, while the talk page has not been edited for a week.--The Traditionalist (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#"The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement." (Initiated 3237 days ago on 15 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Why is an early close being requested? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, maybe because, in the Proposals section, editors have reached an agreement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Flyer22 Reborn. Today is the 30th day after the RfC was opened, so an RfC close will no longer be early. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, maybe because, in the Proposals section, editors have reached an agreement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vehbi_Koç#RfC_on_the_Kasapyan_estate (Initiated 3242 days ago on 10 January 2016)? Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#RfC on inclusion of Overtime Politics polls (Initiated 3242 days ago on 10 January 2016)? 108.2.58.56 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus of the RfC at Talk:Shrauta (Initiated 3201 days ago on 20 February 2016)? I doubt there will be more input.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done - No need to close after running for 7 rather than 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:CobraNet#RfC on manufacturer list (Initiated 3272 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Done - No consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278#Standard offer unblock request from Md iet (Initiated 3217 days ago on 4 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cannabis dispensaries in the United States#RfC for "Cannabis dispensaries" or "Marijuana dispensaries" (Initiated 3230 days ago on 22 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Veganism/Archive 14#RfC: Should the definition at the start of the lead of Veganism contain the wording, 'and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals'? (Initiated 3235 days ago on 17 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done - No such RFC in the current talk page. May be a malformed request for closure of the RFC. It isn't obvious why Veganism would be discussed in connection with Human spaceflight, and I didn't see such a discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've fixed the link to Talk:Veganism/Archive 14#RfC: Should the definition at the start of the lead of Veganism contain the wording, 'and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals'?. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done. A "part two" RfC has also been opened on Talk:Veganism regarding this RfC. Esquivalience t 03:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've fixed the link to Talk:Veganism/Archive 14#RfC: Should the definition at the start of the lead of Veganism contain the wording, 'and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals'?. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done - No such RFC in the current talk page. May be a malformed request for closure of the RFC. It isn't obvious why Veganism would be discussed in connection with Human spaceflight, and I didn't see such a discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Add templates for poorly sourced content? (Initiated 3253 days ago on 30 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article? (Initiated 3279 days ago on 4 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Closing of this RFC is past due, and the lack of a close has caused contention in dispute resolution. However, closure by a non-Muslim editor would be likely to result in further contention. Request closure by an uninvolved experienced Muslim editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that we should be specifying the religion of the closer, though I understand the pragmatic motivation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC).
- I'm not sure that we should be specifying the religion of the closer, though I understand the pragmatic motivation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC).
- Done --GRuban (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies (Initiated 3266 days ago on 17 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm requesting an early close (and corresponding move) of the move request of Trump Entrepreneur Initiative to Trump University. This is shaping up to be a WP:SNOW discussion and the subject is incredibly hot at the moment, with 99.9% of our traffic coming from our Trump University redirect (compare these). We are in the thick of the Republican primary election season and I'd think we want to confuse as few voters as possible. Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Already done wbm1058 (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Move request City of St Albans to St Albans City and District not opposed. Now request closure by admin and move. Pelarmian (talk)
- Done wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Can an admin please assess the consensus at this discussion and close it accordingly? Thanks in advance for your help. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done wbm1058 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Multiple "Donald Drumpf" XfDs
Both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald J Drumpf and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2#Donald Drumpf are shaping up to be a WP:SNOW close to redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). Can a non-involved admin look over these and make a final judgement? Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Nathan2055: I'd rather these stay open at least for a day or two longer before closing. One of these discussions just started today and the other, yesterday. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for reporting this early, Nathan2055. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
We need an uninvolved admin or experienced editor to close this RfC, there are policy-based arguments on both sides, and a suggested close has been challenged. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
It has not been 30 days yet but the only voice against restoring has been that of the editor who did the trimming, and in the meanwhile, edits to the article will progressively make it more difficult to restore the deleted content semi-automatically. LjL (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
One of the longest and most contentious RfCs I have ever seen. We are really going to need one or more uninvolved admins who are willing to wade through this huge pile of material, apply the 20 or so policies and guidelines that have been invoked, determine consensus, and then write a crystal clear closing summary. No matter what the closing admin does, there will be complaints, appeals, attempts to re-interpret the closing comments, refusal to accept the result, and in all likelihood accusations of antisemitism. Be prepared for a shitstorm on this one.
Related:
- Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Is Bernie Sanders Jewish or is he "Jewish"?
- Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and WP:WEIGHT
- Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes
- Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion
--Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: Done. I'm expecting to see a related thread at WP:AN, and I'm OK with that. If I've missed or overlooked something important, or if there is new information that has surfaced since that discussion that would alter consensus, I'm glad to engage in that discussion and revisit my close. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have a strong tendency to accept rather than challenge RfCs unless the closing admin made a glaring error, which is not the case here. Lacking infallibility, I am not so foolish as to think "I disagree with this decision" somehow equates to "the decision was wrong". That being said, I would have liked a fuller explanation as to how WP:CAT/R ("Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion.") was satisfied without any self-identification through direct speech by Bernie Sanders. Your comment that "Participants who supported the inclusion of 'Jewish' in the religion field of the infobox argued that several sources support the claim that Sanders identifies as Jewish." leads me to suspect that you believe that "I am Jewish" has has the same meaning as "I am a member of the Jewish religion". Do I understand you correctly? I am not trying to re-argue the RfC, just to understand the reasoning behind the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: "I am Jewish" or "I am proud to be Jewish" by itself is ambiguous. Lacking context, it cannot be reliably equated with "I am a member of the Jewish religion." I was merely summarizing that many arguments referred to this point of self-identification. However, some sources where Sanders talks about being Jewish contained sufficient context to make it clear that religion or faith was being referred to specifically, in contrast to some other definition. I, JethroBT drop me a line 10:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Good close. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: "I am Jewish" or "I am proud to be Jewish" by itself is ambiguous. Lacking context, it cannot be reliably equated with "I am a member of the Jewish religion." I was merely summarizing that many arguments referred to this point of self-identification. However, some sources where Sanders talks about being Jewish contained sufficient context to make it clear that religion or faith was being referred to specifically, in contrast to some other definition. I, JethroBT drop me a line 10:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have a strong tendency to accept rather than challenge RfCs unless the closing admin made a glaring error, which is not the case here. Lacking infallibility, I am not so foolish as to think "I disagree with this decision" somehow equates to "the decision was wrong". That being said, I would have liked a fuller explanation as to how WP:CAT/R ("Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion.") was satisfied without any self-identification through direct speech by Bernie Sanders. Your comment that "Participants who supported the inclusion of 'Jewish' in the religion field of the infobox argued that several sources support the claim that Sanders identifies as Jewish." leads me to suspect that you believe that "I am Jewish" has has the same meaning as "I am a member of the Jewish religion". Do I understand you correctly? I am not trying to re-argue the RfC, just to understand the reasoning behind the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#RfC: Proposal to fix a long term structural problem in Palestine Israel conflict articles (Initiated 3238 days ago on 14 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Democrat/Independent (Initiated 3231 days ago on 21 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I had to dig to find the discussion in Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 6 (that page is already up to Archive 11!) – a bot archived the discussion on February 25. I believe the question is what to show for political party affiliations in the infobox. The most recent change to that appears to have been made at 14:12, 9 February 2016, so that piece of the infobox has been stable for a month now, and I endorse it as a reasonable reflection of the consensus.
- Done wbm1058 (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note that this began as a 01:56, 21 January 2016 semi-protected edit request by 24.229.229.102 which was answered as not done on 02:55, 21 January 2016 by a non-administrator.
- A request for comment was filed by E.M.Gregory with this 12:08, 21 January 2016 edit.
- Complicating matters, a second semi-protected edit request was filed at 05:39, 22 January 2016 by 144.59.38.41, just below the open RfC.
- The second edit request, after some parallel discussion, was also answered as not done, at 19:32, 22 January 2016, by the same non-administrator.
- Parallel discussion forks continued in both edit-request sections. The title of the first edit-request section was changed from Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016 to Democrat/Independent, with this 19:59, 26 January 2016 edit.
- As also linked above, Legobot closed that RfC as "expired" at 13:01, 20 February 2016. The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. The RfC bot will automatically remove any RfC from the active RfC list after 30 days, measured from the first timestamp within the RfC section on the talk page. RfC may be extended beyond 30 days or re-listed by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- The second edit-request was archived to Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 5 § Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016 at 01:28, 20 February 2016. I did not consider this discussion fork in my earlier determination of consensus, but, now that I've seen it, my endorsement of the current infobox as a reasonable reflection of the consensus still stands. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eminem#Should info about deaths of Proof and Dawn Scott be added and if yes, then what in form? (RfC) (Initiated 3230 days ago on 22 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive_39#Seeking clarification (Initiated 3253 days ago on 30 December 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive_39#Clarification question on the policy, where the opening editor wrote, "Does the WP:BLPSOURCES ban on tabloid journalism mean that no BLP material can be sourced to a Tabloid Journal?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mohamed Hadid/Archives/2018#Request for comment (Initiated 3241 days ago on 11 January 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the article include "(now Israel)" next to mentions of Mandatory Palestine, the name of the place at the time the subject was born?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#RFC (Initiated 3234 days ago on 18 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: How should we word the lede? (Initiated 3235 days ago on 17 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: "List of Verified Oldest Living People" as title instead of "List of Oldest Living People" (Initiated 3233 days ago on 19 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS? (Initiated 3246 days ago on 6 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)#Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50): RfC on lede passage (Initiated 3254 days ago on 29 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done. --GRuban (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Super-easy close: Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_179#.22winningest.22_in_sports_articles (Initiated 3238 days ago on 14 January 2016)
We actually drafted and !voted on a 5-point consensus (with notes than need not be part of the close), at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Can we wrap this up?. While this could be allowed to just expired into the archives, it would be convenient to have a formal close, because the thread, and its derailed sub-thread about clarifying MoS's meaning with regard to formal/encyclopedic language, is holding up re-opening a "clean" discussion on the latter point, unpolluted by "winningest"-related bickering. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- This RFC has been archived. It has been marked as closed, but it has not been closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done. --GRuban (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
May we have an administrator review & close that Rfc? It's been about 30 days now. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3206 days ago on 15 February 2016)
- Comment: This RfC is closely related to another RfC (Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Request for comment: How to deal with this article) and a merge proposal (Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal). It would be best if all three were closed together. (But the merge proposal is still being vigorously debated.) StAnselm (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done, and reaching for my tin hat as this will undoubtedly cause ructions. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Please disposition this discussion which started on 17FEB2016. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3204 days ago on 17 February 2016)
- Done by JzG. Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please close this RFC? It has been open since January 25, and the consensus seems clear. 43.226.229.10 (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3227 days ago on 25 January 2016)
Will an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reference_desk/Archive_122#Concrete_proposal concerning semi-protection of the Reference Desks? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3210 days ago on 11 February 2016)
- Done, but if you think an RfC needs closure it might be an idea to un-archive it first since trolling through backlogs of archived discussions in order to close them as no consensus feels a lot like bureaucracy, and that's the kind of thing that puts admins off reviewing the backlogs. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- I thought that there was consensus, but I don't plan to ask for closure review. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Star Alliance#RfC: Should flag icons be removed in the tables? (Initiated 3200 days ago on 21 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done, though arguably unnecessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
A two part expired RfC, should be a fairly easy close. Sam Walton (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3243 days ago on 9 January 2016)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ExxonMobil#RfC: Should the article have a heading about support for climate change denialism? (Initiated 3241 days ago on 11 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The RfC recently expired and needs closing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3218 days ago on 3 February 2016)
- Done Drmies (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Frampton#RfC on drug smuggling conviction material (Initiated 3224 days ago on 28 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Drmies (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Climate change denial#RfC: Is this article encyclopedic and does it comply with NPOV? (Initiated 3225 days ago on 27 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Edmonson County High School#Should the dress-code controversy information that keeps getting deleted be included in the article? (Initiated 3226 days ago on 26 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done, Tvx1 18:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
A formal close would be nice. Consensus was clear in the first week or two, and there has been no comment in the last week. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Drmies (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- If an editor who is neutral, not against the proposal, could write a less biased closing statement, that would be better, wouldn't it? Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Will an administrator please assess the consensus at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive279#BLP_violations_and_sockpuppetry_by_User:Lane99, and, if appropriate, implement the ban? This thread was archived without formal closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Drmies (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request lifting of Topic Ban of DrChrissy (Initiated 3186 days ago on 6 March 2016)? Please consider Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Topic ban for DrChrissy and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#DrChrissy's topic ban in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done, by HighinBC. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Carly Fiorina#Planned Parenthood and Carly Fiorina (Initiated 3223 days ago on 29 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Drmies. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maya civilization#Definition sentence (Initiated 3225 days ago on 27 January 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Definition. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Done ____
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zionism#RfC (Initiated 3210 days ago on 11 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Done - No consensus - Recommend new RFC
(Initiated 3210 days ago on 11 February 2016)
We need an experienced editor/admin to look at this RfC. The initial question concerns the way in which Palestine is listed on this page, though the question also has implications for other leaders of unrecognised or partially recognized states, and for leaders of sub-national entities (constituent countries of the Netherlands and so forth). It also impacts on related pages (List of state leaders in 2015, etc...). I should note that a couple of editors have questioned the phrasing of the RfC itself. Appreciate that this is a complex one but a careful eye is needed to suggest how to proceed! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done - Discussion still ongoing.--Aervanath (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Aervanath: The discussion is over and the result is zero consensus for change, per the lack of prior discussion to the Rfc & the misleading and biased nature of the Rfc question.--Neve–selbert 17:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- The only reason to close this RFC would be that it is misleadingly and non-neutrally worded, in which case it can be closed as incapable of producing consensus. Otherwise it can be left open for 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Neve-selbert: As of this writing the most recent contribution to the RFC is only 30 seconds old. Convention is to let RFCs run for at least 30 days or as long as it takes to reach consensus, whichever is longer. The discussion is only 11 days old at this point. I skimmed the discussion; while the initial RFC could have been better-worded, my impression is that the majority of contributors are not biased by the wording of the RFC. I don't see anything there to convince me to close it early. There is no rush.--Aervanath (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Aervanath: The contributors to the survey are simply unaware that they are opposing the status quo, they believe that they are opposing a change to the status quo instead. This is the fundamental flaw & another reason as to why the Rfc should be closed ASAP.--Neve–selbert 20:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Neve-selbert: Like I said, in my skimming of the discussion, the contributors seem perfectly aware of the implications of their statements. I see no need to close early, I see no fundamental flaw. Let the RFC run out its normal course, please.--Aervanath (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Aervanath: Would the result be binding? This is totally confusing, there are overwhelming flaws with the Rfc. The contributors are supporting keeping the status quo while at the same time supporting changing the status quo and vice versa (whichever way you look at it). Surely, that is a cause for concern.--Neve–selbert 22:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Neve-selbert: The result would be binding if there was consensus for any particular result. That's how consensus works. I (or whatever other admin eventually closes the RfC) will not look at whether people are for or against the "status quo", but will look at what people think the article should look like going forward. If there is a consensus for what the article should look like, then it doesn't matter what the status quo was.--Aervanath (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Aervanath: Would the result be binding? This is totally confusing, there are overwhelming flaws with the Rfc. The contributors are supporting keeping the status quo while at the same time supporting changing the status quo and vice versa (whichever way you look at it). Surely, that is a cause for concern.--Neve–selbert 22:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Neve-selbert: Like I said, in my skimming of the discussion, the contributors seem perfectly aware of the implications of their statements. I see no need to close early, I see no fundamental flaw. Let the RFC run out its normal course, please.--Aervanath (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Aervanath: The contributors to the survey are simply unaware that they are opposing the status quo, they believe that they are opposing a change to the status quo instead. This is the fundamental flaw & another reason as to why the Rfc should be closed ASAP.--Neve–selbert 20:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Aervanath: The discussion is over and the result is zero consensus for change, per the lack of prior discussion to the Rfc & the misleading and biased nature of the Rfc question.--Neve–selbert 17:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an administrator please review & close this Rfc? It's been 30 days, now. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3210 days ago on 11 February 2016)
- Done. That won't be controversial at all, oh no. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Line for Elizabeth II (Initiated 3232 days ago on 20 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Brustopher. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Request for comments: Should the infobox medical condition contain a list of synonyms? (Initiated 0 days ago on 25 November 2024)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done Guy (Help!) 08:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Can someone assess the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RFC for multiple letter capitalisations in the MoS. There are multiple options and there seems to be mixed opinion on all of them. There is also discussion about the same issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 20#Extending the "one-letter lowercase prefix" rule to multiple-letter prefixes and Talk:TVOS. Thanks, Tom29739 [talk] 17:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC). (Initiated 3221 days ago on 31 January 2016)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:China#Flag (Initiated 3226 days ago on 26 January 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "Should we adopt or restore or (replace file) this flag with 7 February 2011 version of the flag". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done - No Consensus - need new RFC with better publicity. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Comedy of the commons#RfC Should this article be about the phrase or concept of 'Comedy of the Commons' (Initiated 3215 days ago on 6 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RFC for multiple letter capitalisations in the MoS (Initiated 3221 days ago on 31 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see how the discussion is closed. Tvx1 18:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ack! So sorry, marked the wrong discussion! Let me look at this one too, though...--GRuban (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Really done. I'm sure this time. And also marked done the other place this is listed here. --GRuban (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ack! So sorry, marked the wrong discussion! Let me look at this one too, though...--GRuban (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see how the discussion is closed. Tvx1 18:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Communist Manifesto#Request for comments (Initiated 3227 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Freedom Caucus#RFC: far-right (Initiated 3226 days ago on 26 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fleshlight#Request for comment: image of fleshlight in use (Initiated 3228 days ago on 24 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:The Daily Stormer#Far-right or Neo-Nazism (Initiated 3227 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Administrative Actions of Nyttend (Initiated 3200 days ago on 21 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done by KrakatoaKatie. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Two RFC's need closing
One is snow close Talk:Muhammad#Remove 'founder of islam' reference. The other needs a cool headed admin(preferably knowledgeable in Islam) who is willing to read the entire RFC and is able to deal with the fall out later on. Talk:Muhammad#RFC for opening sentence in the lede. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Muhammad#RFC for opening sentence in the lede (Initiated 3238 days ago on 14 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and WP:WEIGHT (Initiated 3219 days ago on 2 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done by SMcCandlish. --GRuban (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Prices#RfC: why no prices at all? (Initiated 3222 days ago on 30 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dollar Shave Club#Arbitration clause RFC (Initiated 3219 days ago on 2 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#RFC: Should there be a See Also to Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks? (Initiated 3218 days ago on 3 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Malcolm X#RfC: Which photo is best for the infobox? (Initiated 3209 days ago on 12 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Alsee (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Child abuse#RfC: Should the lead sentence use a broader definition of child abuse? (Initiated 3218 days ago on 3 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Already done by Drmies. Alsee (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mary Katharine Ham#RfC: Which photo is best for the infobox? (Initiated 3214 days ago on 7 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Alsee (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016#RfC: Should the candidate tables contain state maps and logos? (Initiated 3218 days ago on 3 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Alsee (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rafik Yousef#Request for comment regarding categorisation (Initiated 3209 days ago on 12 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Alsee (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: amendment to WP:NOTREPOSITORY (Initiated 3214 days ago on 7 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- AFAICT, there are four (!) RfCs on essentially the same subject. This one and Wikipedia talk:Videos/Archive 1#RfC: Full-length films/videos in articles are about embedding videos in general, while Talk:A Free Ride#RfC: Replace embedded hardcore pornographic movie with link to Commons? (closed, but under appeal) and Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#RfC: Placement of video are about individual videos, both of which are pornographic. Sunrise (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- There was also this discussion which was based on a complete misunderstanding of how embedding works and what it is for. Without speculating on their motivations, several editors have gone off half-cocked and started discussions without first understanding the implications of changing the standard parctice of embedding public domain movies in articles about those movies. Even the most recent RfC does not explain how embedding works and as a result editors are voting based on assumptions about bandwidth usage or movies playing automatically. I've just about given up on this issue. Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- This RFC is an overdue WP:SNOW. 13 OPPOSE, 3 SUPPORT. It would be very helpful to get this cleared away. Alsee (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cold War II#RfC: Add info about China–U.S. relations? (Initiated 3207 days ago on 14 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Alsee (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus? (Initiated 3177 days ago on 15 March 2016) Horizonlove (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Alsee (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
A merge proposal at the above page has received eight opinions but has had no activity for more than a month. So I am requesting that it be closed. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3209 days ago on 12 February 2016)
- Done Alsee (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This TfD on a frequently-used Article Wizard template has been running for five days. All but one editor has !voted "keep" and the nominator has clarified that they don't actually want to delete or merge the template. --McGeddon (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Now seven days. It needs an admin or template editor closure because the template is protected. --McGeddon (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done. This was closed as keep, 18 March, by BU Rob13 [1] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I was about to close Talk:Tor_(anonymity_network)#Requested_move_25_February_2016 as not moved, but I saw this subsection. I don't think I can close it because of this, if someone can close it, I'd be thankful. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Open nearly a month. Not many new arguments being made. Calidum ¤ 03:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions#RfC on Motorcycling Conventions (Initiated 3220 days ago on 1 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not done Nothing meaningful to close there. Marked as "done=yes" to clear it off the list. Alsee (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Unclosed discussions from 2015 December 4, 2015 December 7 and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 December 29. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging @Explicit: and @TLSuda: as the most active admins in the FFD/PUF area both of which need a bit of attention.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox character#Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016 (Initiated 3196 days ago on 25 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Request for closure re Block chain (database)
I would like to request that an uninvolved administrator review and close the discussion at Talk:Block_chain_(database)#Are_block_chain_designs_based_on_the_bitcoin_protocol.3F. The discussion has been open for multiple weeks, and has had the involvement of a number of editors. Thanks. N2e (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- (moved from WP:AN) — xaosflux Talk 03:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
(Initiated 3183 days ago on 9 March 2016) Could a trusted editor or admin please close Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#RfC: Address. Consensus seems clear, but need someone uninvolved.
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 in American television#RfC: Should "person of color" be changed to "black woman"? (Initiated 3198 days ago on 23 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Standard offer#Proposal for this to finally become a guideline (Initiated 3190 days ago on 2 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ANRFC transclusion (Initiated 3199 days ago on 22 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Plushophilia#RfC: Should the image be kept on the page? (Initiated 3189 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Listed for a month individually, and started as part of a batch on 14 February. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Just Chilling. Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr (Initiated 3271 days ago on 12 December 2015)? —Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- This was going to be no consensus or consensus against, but discussion has renewed for a solution that will satisfy the opposition, so this should not be closed yet. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Done Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
It was redated once and it's been ongoing for 54 days now, but discussion has pretty much died down. All of the monitors of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics voted for a third option, "often": 1, 2, 3 and 4. Current article lead hasn't existed for very long so nothing is yet "stable". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done, discussion is closed. no result. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- I apologize for not explaining well enough but the point was to finally assess concensus as either or, not just closing it. I'll undo the closure in await for someone to actually decide either or. If there is no result it shall just be redated and reopened and the discussion and RfC continued because that is the proper procedure if there is no result yet, not closure. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Removed done tag so this will not be automatically archived by the bot. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- I apologize for not explaining well enough but the point was to finally assess concensus as either or, not just closing it. I'll undo the closure in await for someone to actually decide either or. If there is no result it shall just be redated and reopened and the discussion and RfC continued because that is the proper procedure if there is no result yet, not closure. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else (Initiated 3223 days ago on 29 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Correction: It was actually initiated on 28 November 2015, but redated a few times for the RfC bot. I'd also like to specify that this request was asked for to finally get an "either or" result, and not just "no decision". There was a request for closure of this discussion already above, but because of the discussion at the talk of this very project page I'll briefly mention this here for now and if the one above is returned I'll remove this bit. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm merging these two comments from a duplicate section I created below. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion was closed by User:Guy on 18 March. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Yep, it's done. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML (Initiated 3270 days ago on 13 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- This should run for another week or two, as it was not properly advertized and got insufficient attention. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done - discussion has recently picked up again with a drive for more participants. Sam Walton (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Removed not done template so the bot won't prematurely advertise it. I agree with waiting more time before closing it. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done by JzG. Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Removed not done template so the bot won't prematurely advertise it. I agree with waiting more time before closing it. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done - discussion has recently picked up again with a drive for more participants. Sam Walton (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size (Initiated 3226 days ago on 26 January 2016)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've fixed your initiation date to be the actual date for the RFC.
- It's not clear to me whether this actually needs an official closing statement. The disputants seem to have moved on to other subjects, and that particular line of text in the guideline seems to be stable now. It might be better to have people spend time on discussions that need help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it needs official closing to settle this dispute. If this dispute comes up again, and it likely will, it will be good to point to the recent consensus on the matter...one with an official close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Do you realistically expect it to come up again during the next three to six months? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it needs official closing to settle this dispute. If this dispute comes up again, and it likely will, it will be good to point to the recent consensus on the matter...one with an official close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- With what I've seen there from two editors in particular, it is very likely to come up again within the next three to six months. Either way, even a year later is too soon for me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption (Initiated 3221 days ago on 31 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done Drmies (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Could an admin take the appropriate closure action here and change the page notice on the article? A decision to force AmEng on the article last year was done so on a false statement on the original variant of English used, and the current consensus reflects the truth of the matter. – SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: can an admin change the page notice (seen when opening to edit the page), which still expressly states that the page is in AmEng. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Edit notice updated. Fences&Windows 22:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies; I updated a comment opening the page, but clearly that was not the notice meant. Guess being an admin was necessary after all. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change#Originally_about_2005_conference (Initiated 3194 days ago on 27 February 2016)? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done This was really resolved by the time I got there, but I rubberstamped the decision. Fences&Windows 22:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Close down Possibly Unfree Files
(Initiated 3156 days ago on 5 April 2016)Could a trusted editor or admin please close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Close down Possibly Unfree Files. Consensus seems clear, but need someone uninvolved. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Already done ~ RobTalk 04:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Could an administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat? This was a very contentious ANI thread, and a request for arbitration is concurrently open for the same issues. Mz7 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Seconded. (I came here to make the same request). With all the admins that go by ANI on a regular basis, I can't believe that one, just one can't take a moment and close that train-wreck down. There is nothing that can be accomplished there. It's a huge pile of sewage now, and it's just getting bigger and smelling worse by the minute. There is a clear consensus to close it and the there already a request at ArbCom, that will almost certainly become a case as soon as the ANI is closed (they've basically said as much). So just close it already. - theWOLFchild 03:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Now Already done Mz7 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Could we get a WP:SNOW close on this WP:BLP-sensitive AfD, please? Thanks, ansh666 22:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not done. It does not qualify for WP:SNOW. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor please assess consensus at this TfD? It's the oldest open discussion at TfD. (Initiated 3197 days ago on 24 February 2016) Thanks!~ RobTalk 01:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:NARAL Pro-Choice America#Change "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" per WP:NPOV (Initiated 3192 days ago on 29 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control (Initiated 3227 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion was archived, and there is relatively little firm consensus. As an alternative to un-archiving it solely for the sake of saying "many good comments, but not much consensus for specific actions here" – something that ought to be perfectly obvious to the experienced editors who participated in that discussion – I'm marking this request done and leaving it in the archive. WhatamIdoing (talk)
Uninvolved editor needed to perform the close. Consensus is fairly clear, but I'm involved. (Initiated 3189 days ago on 3 March 2016) Thanks! ~ RobTalk 03:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Already done ~ RobTalk 09:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation (Initiated 3211 days ago on 10 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Already done ~ RobTalk 09:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Consensus is fairly obvious to close down PUF and merge it with WP:FFD. The closure should be uncontentious, but the enacting of the results will require some work. Posting this here so if anyone wants to go through the grunt work of closing down and marking "historical" the PUF process and then redirecting users in the relevant documentation to WP:FFD, they can get started on that. Also, someone will have to move the backlog of cases from PUF (or clear them) as well. Thanks for any help! --Jayron32 18:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 7#Discussion regarding updating FFD to accommodate the NFCR merge could potentially be referenced for most necessary steps that need to be taken for this merge. The only major differences between the referenced section and the PUF to FFD merge are that no venue is getting renamed and the changes that will need to be made to AnomieBOT's function are slightly different (the bot will have to stop making daily subpages for PUF after the merge has been finalized.) I made some attempt to work out the NFCR to FFD merge, so feel free to ping me with any questions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Already done ~ RobTalk 02:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Expired RfC does not appear to let the actual article remain on a consensus version without official closure. I think it is possible to determine consensus and close it, so I am requesting it here. LjL (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Already done ~ RobTalk 08:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Use_of_national_flag_icons_on_each_launch_payload Cheers. (Initiated 0 days ago on 25 November 2024) N2e (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections (Initiated 3272 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
{{on hold}}There is an open sock investigation of one of the RFC participants for voting irregularities relating to this article. It it results in a block then I believe it may be appropriate to strike their !votes before evaluating a close. Alsee (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)- @Alsee: please provide status update or follow up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ncmvocalist, it looks like SPI is probably backlogged. See the sock investigation link I gave. It's still listed as open, with no response yet from any admin, clerk, or checkuser. Once it's resolved anyone can remove the "On Hold" and close it. Alsee (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sock investigation closed with an AGF and no action. Speedy Vanjagenije marked this done while I was working my way through four RFC sections to close. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ncmvocalist, it looks like SPI is probably backlogged. See the sock investigation link I gave. It's still listed as open, with no response yet from any admin, clerk, or checkuser. Once it's resolved anyone can remove the "On Hold" and close it. Alsee (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Alsee: please provide status update or follow up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Already done Vanjagenije (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Russell Wilson/Archives/2018/November#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed? (Initiated 3216 days ago on 5 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Seems to be a moot point. An editor updated his ancestry using a source published since the RfC began. Fences&Windows 21:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing (Initiated 3227 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011 (Initiated 3219 days ago on 2 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article (Initiated 3212 days ago on 9 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
This RfC expired a week ago, but was never closed. A formal closure is needed, as involved editors are starting to make a bit of a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:SNOW, but the primary editors of the article refuse to acknowledge consensus. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not done for now. The discussion, as it stands, is only one day old. In addition, I am not seeing any attempt at consensus-building or civility there (it's full of PA), so unless both parties (primarily the editor who filed this request) start a constructive discussion without resorting to verbal artillery, I'm afraid that this discussion will go nowhere. Esquivalience t 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Generic gun photo (Initiated 3188 days ago on 4 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers#RfC: Should IBM 2841 be a separate article and should it list the IBM 7320 (Initiated 3198 days ago on 23 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israel#Should the same language be used in the lead for Israel and for Palestine? (Initiated 3208 days ago on 13 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marco Rubio#RfC: Should Senator Rubio's portrait be replaced? (Initiated 3192 days ago on 29 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done Alsee (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shrauta#RfC: move page to Śrauta (Initiated 3201 days ago on 20 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Shannara Chronicles#RFC for Episode List Format (Initiated 3208 days ago on 13 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done: No outcome. Negligible participation and unclear RFC question. Alsee (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Relist has gone well over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Already done Vanjagenije (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine (Initiated 3217 days ago on 4 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not done This RfC has since been moved to an archive and there's no obvious consensus worth dragging it out of the archive to provide. Best let this one rest. ~ RobTalk 10:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
We need an experienced editor to assess the discussion in the above link. The difference of opinion lies in whether an article about a train station, or railway station, should begin with simply the name of the station (for example, "Culver City") or whether it should begin with the title of the article, like "Culver City station." Discussion has tapered off; recent remarks have simply repeated the arguments made earlier. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3199 days ago on 22 February 2016)
- BeenAroundAWhile, it's obvious that editors prefer option #1, but your RFC, despite being on the talk page for a guideline, never included any sort of proposal to change the words in the guideline. I'm therefore uncertain what you're looking for: Someone to officially decree that editors prefer to begin articles about train stations with "Gotham train station is..." instead of "Gotham is..." at a rate of approximately 10:1? That seems pointless to me, but it could be done. Did you want someone to add a "rule" in MOS:LEAD about the One True Wording™ for the first sentence of articles about transit stations? There is no sensible place to do that. MOS:LEAD is for all the articles, not for one subject area (or even two or three subject areas). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: This is a good point. It would seem like possibly the place to put this result would be WP:STATIONS (
after adding a 'Lead' section thereactually, it looks like the new addition would go in the 'Structure' section there, which already discusses the lead). But I agree with BeenAroundAWhile that the consensus on this one is clear, and the result of this RfC needs to be "codified" somewhere... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)- WikiProjects pages are a bit like user pages; we can't demand that a particular group of editors declare that they recommend what other people have decided. However, if it had been me, I would have started the discussion there. (Also, I would have split their limited advice on to a subpage and tagged it with {{WikiProject style advice}}.)
- I do not see the point of "codifying" anything here. The English Wikipedia explicitly, by policy, does not have legal codes. The point of closing a discussion is to help people figure out what the result of that one-time discussion was – assuming that they need any help, which in this case I seriously doubt – not to declare that this is the rule and that consensus can't change (or at least can't change without a huge fight). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- This strikes me as a kind of WP:BURO response – because this RfC didn't get posted to exactly the "right place", and in exactly the "right way", it doesn't count for anything?... It was held in what could be argued is the right place – MOS:LEAD. It was even advertised at WT:STATIONS. So the idea that it carries no "weight" there strikes me as an odd claim... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I've explained myself clearly. It is indeed a WP:NOTBURO response: IMO there is no need to jump through bureaucratic hoops like "have an uninvolved editor write a formal closing statement" or "codify the result in a guideline". Use the results of the discussion, but don't be all bureaucratic about it.
- My point about STATIONS is only that some volunteers (e.g., non-members who were involved in the discussion) can't force other volunteers (e.g., members of that WikiProject) to promote this view as if it were their own advice. That group can volunteer to include it, but we can't force them to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- This strikes me as a kind of WP:BURO response – because this RfC didn't get posted to exactly the "right place", and in exactly the "right way", it doesn't count for anything?... It was held in what could be argued is the right place – MOS:LEAD. It was even advertised at WT:STATIONS. So the idea that it carries no "weight" there strikes me as an odd claim... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: This is a good point. It would seem like possibly the place to put this result would be WP:STATIONS (
- Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Proposed merge with Big the Cat needs formal closure czar 04:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not done I closed, then reverted my close when I saw it was initiated 03:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC). No need for controversy of someone possibly complaining about an early non-admin close. Alsee (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Alsee, merge discussions aren't RfCs—they need not go longer than a week if the consensus is clear... czar 02:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- The merge closure page only indicates "one week or more" for cases with no dissent. Perhaps I'm being overly cautious and WP:NORUSH here, but there is notable dissent to that merge and the previous merge discussion was 6-6. A shift to no-consensus is unlikely but plausible. See WP:Jamaican Bobsled Team clause. Alsee (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Alsee, merge discussions aren't RfCs—they need not go longer than a week if the consensus is clear... czar 02:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done I'll leave it to Czar to place the appropriate tags on the pages, etc. ~ RobTalk 13:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Consensus needs to be evaluated. --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done No consensus was built over the proposed merger. Mhhossein (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The subject GAR is open for community reassessment since October 2015. Need someone to conclude it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
This Rfc has reached its 30th day. We need an administrator to close it & make his/her own interpretation of the results. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article? (Initiated 3226 days ago on 26 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun? (Initiated 3213 days ago on 8 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams" (Initiated 3228 days ago on 24 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, this Rfc's options have been unintentionally worded in a non-neutral style & therefore, the Rfc should be closed. Note I've opened up a new Rfc, which presents the same options, but rather in a neutral style. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3206 days ago on 15 February 2016)
- Comment: This RfC should not be closed in isolation - there is also an associated merge discussion ongoing, and the two are closely related. (For example, a couple of votes in the merge discussion are apparently based on reasons presented in the previous RfC.) In my opinion, the new RfC simply adds to the considerable unnecessary verbiage on the page. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Update: The first Rfc has expired as no consensus for any of the 3 options. Furthermore, I've closed the second Rfc (that I had opened), per StAnselm's point, about "unnecessary verbiage".:) GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Further comment: The original RfC was closed as no consensus by the originator a few days ago, and this close has not been contested. It would be helpful if someone could close the merge discussion, though. StAnselm (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Notifying Jack Upland, as he's the merge nominator. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled about where this page is heading...--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- My first choice is for the page to be deleted. My second choice is to split it up & merge its parts into the 2 articles you nominated to merge with. Most of all, let's hope the article-in-question won't be used as a vehicle for promoting the We don't know argument, across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but your desire for deletion is fairly irrelevant given that you admitted that you couldn't be bothered figuring out how to nominate it for AfD. StAnselm (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's not impossible for me to re-learn how. Deletion is an option, I haven't put aside. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but your desire for deletion is fairly irrelevant given that you admitted that you couldn't be bothered figuring out how to nominate it for AfD. StAnselm (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- My first choice is for the page to be deleted. My second choice is to split it up & merge its parts into the 2 articles you nominated to merge with. Most of all, let's hope the article-in-question won't be used as a vehicle for promoting the We don't know argument, across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled about where this page is heading...--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Notifying Jack Upland, as he's the merge nominator. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm requesting an admin or an experienced user to assess the consensus at the mentioned page. (Initiated 3202 days ago on 19 February 2016) Mhhossein (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Consensus is to keep the information. Fences&Windows 16:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Penny#WP:ENGVAR (Initiated 3213 days ago on 8 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Rfc: How shall Elizabeth II be presented? (Initiated 3211 days ago on 10 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sicario (2015 film)#Request for comment (Initiated 3189 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alt-right#RfC: Merge to Richard B. Spencer (Initiated 3186 days ago on 6 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC: Criticism subsection (Initiated 3200 days ago on 21 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pepperdine University#RfC: Should the current "In popular culture" section be significantly modified or deleted? (Initiated 3208 days ago on 13 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality (Initiated 3269 days ago on 14 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- not done as further edits seem to have overtaken the last participation in the RfC so as to make formal assessment unnecessary unless a participant requires. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:
The discussion seems contentious which is why I'm not closing it myself. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)1. Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature?
2. Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?
- Agree, its a hotly contested article in the GMO area that was part of a recent Arbcom case, and should be closed. I cant close it because of my involvement in that case, but even if I could I wouldnt as a NAC. AlbinoFerret 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think that Ncmvocalist is correct. Nobody seems to be edit-warring over those two questions, a lot has changed since then (more than 200 edits and work by User:SlimVirgin and User:Tryptofish, both of whom are skilled with this sort of problem), a practical compromise seems to be in place, and the person who started the RFC retired weeks ago and requested that his account be blocked. The likely outcome is only to enshrine, as The Eternal Consensus™, the results of a single discussion about whether the words "peer-review" should appear in the article (current, stable state: yes, but maybe not as many times as some anti-GMO POV pushers would like) and whether the articles should be used as primary sources (current, stable state: the re-published one is cited as a source to say that it was re-published, and both versions are prominently linked as ==External links==, which is probably more than some pro-GMO POV pushers would like). It would probably be better to leave this alone, and let editors use their best judgment over time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not done on the basis of the above comments. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think that Ncmvocalist is correct. Nobody seems to be edit-warring over those two questions, a lot has changed since then (more than 200 edits and work by User:SlimVirgin and User:Tryptofish, both of whom are skilled with this sort of problem), a practical compromise seems to be in place, and the person who started the RFC retired weeks ago and requested that his account be blocked. The likely outcome is only to enshrine, as The Eternal Consensus™, the results of a single discussion about whether the words "peer-review" should appear in the article (current, stable state: yes, but maybe not as many times as some anti-GMO POV pushers would like) and whether the articles should be used as primary sources (current, stable state: the re-published one is cited as a source to say that it was re-published, and both versions are prominently linked as ==External links==, which is probably more than some pro-GMO POV pushers would like). It would probably be better to leave this alone, and let editors use their best judgment over time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, its a hotly contested article in the GMO area that was part of a recent Arbcom case, and should be closed. I cant close it because of my involvement in that case, but even if I could I wouldnt as a NAC. AlbinoFerret 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Putin#Rfc regarding sentence in the lede (Initiated 3202 days ago on 19 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002#Spanish response (Initiated 3204 days ago on 17 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Corporal punishment/Archive 3#RfC: Merge "Campaigns against corporal punishment" into "Corporal punishment"? (Initiated 3190 days ago on 2 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin please close Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 18#File:The Testament of Sister New Devil Vol.1 Blu-Ray.jpg, or perhaps relist it if you think that is appropriate. It just seems to have been left open, and there hasn't been any new comments in over a month. Calathan (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done - This has now been closed by User:Oiyarbepsy, so it looks like this is taken care of now. Calathan (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
We need an uninvolved editor to close the RFC on this page, please. —Torchiest talkedits 16:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Enable Hovercards by default (Initiated 3176 days ago on 16 March 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Working on it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done (ish). - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Request for early closure, since participants have mutually agreed on a consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Tenebrae: notdone If you've agreed on a consensus, there's no need for formal closure. ~ RobTalk 13:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Removed notdone template to prevent archival by the bot. Tenebrae (talk · contribs) wrote:
It is clear that closure by an uninvolved editor is helpful even if there's an agreed on consensus ("since we might like to be able to point to a single, proper, clearly labeled discussion in case there are challenges"). I am therefore removing the notdone template so that the discussion will be closed by an uninvolved editor. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Here is what the admin said: "If you've agreed on a consensus, there's no need for formal closure. ~ RobTalk 13:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC). Now, according to WP:RfC, "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time," whether a resolution was reached or not, and that "it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor", whether admin or not (though since closings can be challenged, I've often found in practical terms it's better for an admin to do it).
It goes on to say that we can choose to enclose the RfC discussion in a box "with or without a closing statement." Since our consensus affects a Project-wide template; since it might also affect Project:Television; and since we might like to be able to point to a single, proper, clearly labeled discussion in case there are challenges, I believe we should take the option of enclosing the discussion, using the following template that the WP:RfC makes available: [template]
I would suggest that if there are no objections in the next, say, two days, that I and another of us ask an uninvolved editor to enclose this RfC discussion. I hope this sounds OK.
- @Cunard: I'll close this in a moment just to clear it out of the queue, but please see WP:RFC, which says "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." (bold in the original). ~ RobTalk 02:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Already done actually. ~ RobTalk 02:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard: I'll close this in a moment just to clear it out of the queue, but please see WP:RFC, which says "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." (bold in the original). ~ RobTalk 02:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Removed notdone template to prevent archival by the bot. Tenebrae (talk · contribs) wrote:
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Georgiy Starostin#RfC: Should Starostin's hobby as a self-published music blogger be mentioned in this article? (Initiated 3187 days ago on 5 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deepak Chopra#RfC: Is the lead, among other parts of the article, reflective of the sources and a NPOV? (Initiated 3186 days ago on 6 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to do away with including world leader responses to terrorist incidents (Initiated 3169 days ago on 23 March 2016)? Please assess the consensus on or after April 22, 2016 (30 days after the RfC was begun). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peyton Manning#Request For Comment (Initiated 3185 days ago on 7 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Exponential function#RfC: Should exponential function be about exponentiation to any base? (Initiated 3175 days ago on 17 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Tom Pryce#A Welsh racing driver is a five year old discussion that was never properly closed. The discussion's initiator claimed agreement in their favour after roughly two weeks, but I see many argument against their position which are apparently ignored. I have some concerns of it constituting a WP:local consensus, since there is a pre-existing consensus WikiProject consensus on how to deal with the raised type of issue. I would be greatly appreciated if an uninvolved person makes a proper assessment of the discussion. (Initiated 5072 days ago on 6 January 2011) Tvx1 13:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not done @Tvx1: Given WP:CCC, it's inappropriate to close a five-year old discussion and use that as evidence of consensus. Instead, I recommend starting a new RfC to assess the current consensus. ~ RobTalk 03:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The Graffiki DRV hasn't been closed, a week after the normal discussion period was over. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please help, because all of the regular DRV closers who are currently active have participated in the discussion, so it's not getting closed.—S Marshall T/C 17:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Real Robot#RFC: What should this be titled? (Initiated 3180 days ago on 12 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not done There's an ongoing RM discussion below this RfC, and that RM asks essentially the same question in a more focused way. The closure of the RM will encompass this RfC. If you'd like to list the RM after an appropriate amount of time, feel free to do so. ~ RobTalk 18:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg (Initiated 3333 days ago on 11 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Steel1943 relisted the discussion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 24#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please disposition Talk:Hellelujah which has been open for over one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not sure}} Please link to the specific discussion you wish to be closed, not the talk page as a whole. ~ RobTalk 15:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Reply - @BU Rob13:, Talk:Hellelujah#Requested move 17 February 2016 --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- That was closed on the day it was opened. You'd need to start a new one. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon:, actually, if you look carefully, there is part of the discussion that is still open that should be closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to be closed because it's not in an open discussion; it's just some remarks after closing. Dicklyon (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon:, actually, if you look carefully, there is part of the discussion that is still open that should be closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- That was closed on the day it was opened. You'd need to start a new one. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Reply - @BU Rob13:, Talk:Hellelujah#Requested move 17 February 2016 --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not sure}} Please link to the specific discussion you wish to be closed, not the talk page as a whole. ~ RobTalk 15:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
An uninvolved admin needed to close. (Initiated 3190 days ago on 2 March 2016) Vanjagenije (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- archived as no consensus with opener's consent per this Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Irving/Archive 10#RfC: Is the last suggested version regarding David Irving's position on the Holocaust acceptable to be added ("Höfle Telegram material") (Initiated 3205 days ago on 16 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism? (Initiated 3200 days ago on 21 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes (Initiated 3190 days ago on 2 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done Closed long ago. Now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc. (Initiated 3195 days ago on 26 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1st century#RfC: Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"? (Initiated 3189 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Template talk:PBB#RfC: Should template:PBB cease operating by transulating subpage onto each article
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:PBB#RfC: Should template:PBB cease operating by transulating subpage onto each article (Initiated 3189 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note to closer: Please do read the discussion section on this one. There was a compromise solution proposed and generally accepted there that isn't reflected in the numerical vote. ~ RobTalk 02:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Closed as wait till later. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stack Overflow#Criticism (Initiated 3195 days ago on 26 February 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this be included? Can Medium be considered a reliable source in this context, regardless of what WP:RS says about blogs?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done formally as the dispute has been resolved by editorial process (non-admin closure). TigraanClick here to contact me 08:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
We need an uninvolved admin to close the RfC on whether or not the popular vote should be included in the template. That discussion is located here. Please note that this topic has also been discussed outside of the RfC. Thanks. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I changed the link to the discussion in @Prcc27:'s request because the section title has been changed to "Inclusion of popular vote". It's high time for an uninvolved admin to assess the situation and move to close. I hope it doesn't hurt that the discussion was not formally titled an RfC; the debate has been raging for months. — JFG talk 19:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pleading for closure again (Initiated 3180 days ago on 12 March 2016) with previous discussions dating back to (Initiated 3206 days ago on 15 February 2016) for an edit war already raging earlier. This template is very visible, sitting as the infobox on one of the top 50 visited pages on Wikipedia (383,944 page views last week). A prompt closure would be most welcome during this relatively quiet period before the next voting spree next Tuesday. Thanks! — JFG talk 16:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done by non-admin editor S51438 with rationale. — JFG talk 09:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Request for comment (Initiated 3179 days ago on 13 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done (non-admin closure) - no action needed, as the RfC was about adding a mention in a paragraph that disappeared since then. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#For articles on short passages like Psalms, which translation do we quote? (Initiated 3189 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done and closed as no consensus (non-admin closure). Recommending to reopen as separate RfC since multiple questions were implicitly asked. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence#RfC: Which version of the lead is better? (Initiated 3171 days ago on 21 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not done – It was a discussion, not a "formal-style" RfC, and it seems resolved. A close is redundant and unnecessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC: Place of birth in Infobox (initiated on 17 February 2016)? The original RfC (initiated on 13 January 2016) was closed improperly and overturned here. The subsequent RfC was bot-removed as expired on 18 March 2016. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Concur with Daicaregos. We need closure. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I would close it as rough consensus for "England, UK", as a temporary measure pending the outcome of a more general discussion (either on British bios or on every kind of similar discussion for not-really-sovereign states), because arguments presented either for "England" or "United Kingdom" were very weak (the strongest being "it is what we used to do", which is not really compelling in an RfC that precisely questions what used to be done - especially since it was argued by both sides (!)). I also would encourage a separate discussion as to whether the current position matters for the "place of birth" (IMO it should not, the country of birth of Nicola Sturgeon should remain the same if she becomes UK PM of even PM of the Netherlands, but it seems others think it matters).
- However, I think wiser to leave this highly contentious close to an admin, even though the consensus seems relatively clear to me. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vyborg#Historical affiliations infobox (Initiated 3189 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maxinquaye#Recent revision to the lead (Initiated 3200 days ago on 21 February 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Maxinquaye#RfC on lead. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal (Initiated 3189 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done already by non-administrator User:BU Rob13. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Federal Way Public Academy#RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools? (Initiated 3193 days ago on 28 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954)#Move or merge proposal (Initiated 3180 days ago on 12 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done--GRuban (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95)#Merge discussion in progress (Initiated 3180 days ago on 12 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler#RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline (Initiated 3183 days ago on 9 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I had asked an administrator with a history of being a good closer to close this one, since it's a complicated discussion about a guideline. The closer, I JethroBT, eventually had to decline due to a busy schedule. So I ask that the editor who eventually closes this uses a lot of care when weighing the opinions and evaluating the consensus or lack of consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127#Use of the phrase "piracy" to mean "copyright infringement" (Initiated 3161 days ago on 31 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done ~ RobTalk 15:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016#Request for comments (Initiated 3172 days ago on 20 March 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "In an effort to end the Wikidrama about this issue: should the sentence "Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs, for $675,000, have become "a campaign issue"" be added back, or is there a better way to add this referenced info?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done ~ RobTalk 15:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of living Medal of Honor recipients#RFC: Is it within Wiki policy/guidelines to include recently deceased persons in an article which lists living people? (Initiated 3160 days ago on 1 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état#RfC: Should Morsi's removal be called an impeachment or removal instead? (Initiated 3172 days ago on 20 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Request for comment: listing positions on particular issues in lead (Initiated 3154 days ago on 7 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done (non-admin closure). Not as contentious as one would expect it to be! TigraanClick here to contact me 15:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment? (Initiated 3188 days ago on 4 March 2016)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic Ban. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Jytdog. Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully request an uninvolved administrator please assess the proposal of uninvolved editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920#Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Only in death does duty end. Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Discuss seems to have reached a lull. Only comments in last few days are comments to make sure it doesn't get archived without admin action. only (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Euryalus. Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer for Technophant (Initiated 3147 days ago on 14 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Talk:Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.#Requested move 6 April 2016, where an editor has specifically requested an admin of long standing and good experience in interpreting RMs. This RM is 4 weeks old, and has been at the tail of the backlog for several days already. Dicklyon (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- But since there don't seem to be any admins closing RM discussions, an experienced non-admin would be OK, I think. I don't see why this one is getting ignored for so long; the issue is spelled out pretty clearly, and someone just has to make a decision, so we can move on. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Fences and windows. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- But since there don't seem to be any admins closing RM discussions, an experienced non-admin would be OK, I think. I don't see why this one is getting ignored for so long; the issue is spelled out pretty clearly, and someone just has to make a decision, so we can move on. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Pepper Spray Incident (Initiated 3162 days ago on 30 March 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#RFC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vedas#RfC: Replace last paragraph of lead (Initiated 3160 days ago on 1 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Really need an administrator to close this one, because this was the third RfC on the same subject in 80 days, and a lot of unorthodox behavior is involved. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Oiyarbepsy. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
There's an RfC that I believe can be closed due to consensus (see my post in it at bottom for my summary of the RfC)...posting here as the RfC is reasonably contentious and it requires moving the name of the article...also, think a note should be placed in the TALK BOX of the article, as I explain in my summary post...if someone could take a look, see what they think...thanks.. (Initiated 3128 days ago on 3 May 2016) 68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not done This is far too soon to list an RfC at ANRFC, especially given there's no clear consensus at this time. Please wait until 30 days after the discussion began. ~ RobTalk 22:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Could someone close this please. The opposes and supports are equal and is in a highly disputed area but you might be able to suggest a way forward that avoids too much edit warring. Thanks Dmcq (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done ~ RobTalk 01:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Should old user space drafts have an expiration date? (Initiated 3168 days ago on 24 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not done because a few closers are evaluating this discussion in the context of a larger RfC that dealt with many similar topics. It will be closed shortly. ~ RobTalk 06:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#RfC on the status of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) (Initiated 3142 days ago on 19 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done ~ RobTalk 20:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:State of Palestine#Description of State of Palestine in the lead (Initiated 3150 days ago on 11 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done ~ RobTalk 20:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide#RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped (Initiated 3143 days ago on 18 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done ~ RobTalk 20:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Schulze method#RfC: Incomplete Comparison Of Runoff Systems To Schulze In Compliance Table (Requesting Removal) (Initiated 3151 days ago on 10 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not done Consensus already assessed by the involved editors and implemented. There's been absolutely no opposition to the solution they came up with since it was implemented on April 10. No independent closure needed. ~ RobTalk 20:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Sex offender registries in the United States#Image of the "Classification of offenders" section
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sex offender registries in the United States#Image of the "Classification of offenders" section (Initiated 3176 days ago on 16 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
This needs a good, accurate closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not done This hasn't been open 30 days yet, and the consensus isn't strong enough to warrant early closure. ~ RobTalk 20:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Is the use of the ESI Score Unencyclopedic? (Initiated 3158 days ago on 3 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- TIME SENSITIVE. PROMPT CLOSURE REQUESTED. A prompt closure here may reduce drama at a Deletion Review in progress, and it may avoid substantial waste of time on repeat process.
- The RFC currently says it is relisted to obtain clearer consensus, but the "relisting" was added by a user who was previously blocked for abusively obstructing consensus regarding this subject. The "relisting" should not discourage closure if a closer finds that 42 days of discussion presents a sufficiently clear consensus.
- There is no dispute that Earth Similarity Index (ESI) has sufficient sources to support its own article, but ESI has negligible scientific acceptance, and different sources use very different formulas to compute conflicting ESI values. The discussion is about various other disputed articles that were constructed and defined entirely around a single source's implementation ESI. Is it encyclopedic to build those other articles around ESI? Alsee (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- You also forgot that the the "abusive" user also opened the RfC, not just relisted it. It was relisted because it was clear (to me and others) that at the time there was no clear consensus although that may be different now. Are those personal attacks really necessary in this post? You should also not be doing POV pushing here to get the closing admin to agree with you, states your arguments in the RfC please (which you already have). Davidbuddy9 Talk 20:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Closed Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts (Initiated 0 days ago on 25 November 2024)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:National Rifle Association#Civil Rights/Liberties Org Categorization (Initiated 3169 days ago on 23 March 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the NRA article be placed into the Civil rights/liberties categories". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Already done The thread has already been closed by the proposer, Gaijin42 (non-admin, ping) on WP:SNOW grounds. While I personally think closing while being involved when there are oppose !votes is inappropriate, especially without a descriptive rationale, I would have closed the same way, so leaving it closed is likely the best option. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Tigraan Thanks for the ping. I agree with you that it is better to have an uninvolved close, but was unaware that the RFC was listed here. If it had not been a clear WP:SNOW I would not have closed it, but the consensus was so overwhelming, I did not think it to be an issue. If you want to replace my close with your own, I would not have an objection. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nah. My "I support the close" comment is a hedge against potential ANI fuss, not a "get off my close". TigraanClick here to contact me 16:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Tigraan Thanks for the ping. I agree with you that it is better to have an uninvolved close, but was unaware that the RFC was listed here. If it had not been a clear WP:SNOW I would not have closed it, but the consensus was so overwhelming, I did not think it to be an issue. If you want to replace my close with your own, I would not have an objection. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy#RfC: Context of Natuna gas field on the impact of climate expertise on ExxonMobil operational planning (Initiated 3136 days ago on 25 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive280#Topic ban requested (Initiated 3126 days ago on 5 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive280#Topic_ban_requested. ~ RobTalk 12:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Already done Not archived at source, but there was a discussion at WP:AN about closure that concluded in a close. ~ RobTalk 15:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Significant discussion also occurred prior to the RfC at Talk:Natalie Portman#Major roles, initiated April 7, 2016. RfC initiated April 8, 2016. A number of editors have commented in both sections, but recently discussion has only involved two editors disagreeing about whether there is a consensus. Both of these editors would like a closure. Sundayclose (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Additional discussion regarding clarification of the subject can be seen at WP:AN/I and WP:NPOV. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please note that the report at ANI was closed with an instruction to come here, and that the discussion at NPOV talk page has one opinion besides Jack Sebastian's, with no additional comments for the past two weeks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Is the language biased? (Initiated 3153 days ago on 8 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
This RfC has been open since 14 February has seen no activity for about 10 days. Since this deals with a contentious issue that is certain to come up again, it would be helpful if this was closed by a previously uninvolved admin (or possibly more than one). before closing this RfC, it would be useful to read through the discussion below and to have a thorough understanding of how embedding files works on Wikipedia. Right Hand Drive (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Videos/Archive 1#RfC: Full-length films/videos in articles (Initiated 3181 days ago on 11 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Requesting closure on this RfC which was initiated on 11 March and hasn't seen any participation lately. I feel like I should mention something about the "validity" of the RfC since discussion sprawled a bit... So without getting into the meat of the RfC.... A couple users raised concerns about the venue -- a discussion which extended to user talk pages and VPP (this thread). Others weighing in on that matter seemed satisfied with the fact that it was (and still is) listed on centralized discussion and was advertised on VPP twice and the objecting editors were invited to move the discussion to VPP (though that didn't happen). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Note: This comment was placed on a duplicate RFC listing. The duplicate listing was deleted and this comment was moved here by Alsee (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by sfarney (Initiated 3099 days ago on 1 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Hut 8.5. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive925#Francis Schonken's disruptive conduct is preventing content creation on Orgelbüchlein (Initiated 3113 days ago on 18 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Ritchie333. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Please disposition the speedy deletion request at Undeniable (Hellyeah album). --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Already done. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
We currently have two move review discussions waiting closer since March 2016.--Cúchullain t/c 14:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Already done. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
What if all the admins who are willing to close RMs have already commented? A couple in the backlog are 5 weeks old tomorrow. Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
There are a number of recent discussions at Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 (including maybe these two discussions as well?) that need to be closed, and, given the nature of some of the discussions and the fact that the page in question is under discretionary sanctions, I think it would be best if an administrator (that has ideally not participated in any recent discussions on that talk page) close those discussions. Thanks in advance for any help that you can provide. Guy1890 (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion on the same talk page is in desperate need of resolution. One editor seems to have made it his mission to include potentially contentious information, and has in fact made it clear he will be adding the information without formal consensus. S51438 (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have closed one of the discussions mentioned by Guy1890 because it was repetitive. S51438 (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is an appropriate request. I'm the editor they're referring to. This is the contentious information they felt was too unreliable for Wikipedia (it needs work and expansion, obviously): Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, fraud and irregularity allegations. The issue now concerns how if at all to link from the primaries article to that. If they feel that arbitral remediation is necessary to close a thread that will be reopened to that limited purpose, I support that. If they want to leave the same thread open and continue it solely in that purpose [of whether and how to link] I'm fine with that too. We had all agreed consensus was against inclusion before they asked for arbitration (so I find this confusing), but the question has also now changed with the creation of a separate article. Michael Sheflin (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- "We had all agreed consensus was against inclusion before they asked for arbitration" is nonsense, but anyone reviewing the history of the page above can see that plainly. Guy1890 (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- You can tell I'm gaming the system because I transparently provided all relevant information. "You cannot merely exclude information of public interest, validly cited. That's the concern. If your question is what does this debate have to do with the page... there does appear to be consensus, at present, against including information on this page. There's no reason given for that so it's not clear to me where you find consensus based on legitimate concerns. But that's fine." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016&type=revision&diff=722964246&oldid=722962140 Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC) *I most sincerely apologize. That was from nearly an hour and a half afterward [when making the statement you found to be nonsense, I was under the impression I had posted that before you requested this; I apologize]. "Look I'll acknowledge you've all won. You've abused and misused the consensus-building process in bad faith to exclude, on hypothetical possibilities, the possibility of valid information." [03:26, 28 May 2016] (this was my acknowledgment that consensus ran against inclusion; but I - and I stand by this - think that misunderstands how Wikipedia works); "Perhaps this consensus attempt has determined that [for now] no section should be added to accommodate the allegations - or perhaps that is not what it has determined. However, that cannot then be used to simply exclude otherwise valid information from Wikipedia." [07:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)]. Regardless of how closely you scrutinized what I said (bc I'll acknowledge my point may not have come across), I think this is kind of a waste of time. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Request withdrawn since all of the originally-highlighted talk page discussions have been archived at this late date. Thanks anyways. Guy1890 (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Collapse top#RfC: Heading centered or left-aligned by default? (Initiated 3142 days ago on 19 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC) {{done}} Tazerdadog (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ted Cruz#RfC: Criticisms and accolades (Initiated 3130 days ago on 1 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC) {{done}} Tazerdadog (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of South America#RfC: The immediate future of this article (Initiated 3160 days ago on 1 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} ... by Cunard, in fact. --GRuban (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#RfC: Does the title, hatnote, and lead of this article adhere to the neutral point of view policy? (Initiated 3128 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War#RfC: Section title (Initiated 3155 days ago on 6 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#RfC: Should WP:FAMILY be deleted from WP:SOCK? (Initiated 3158 days ago on 3 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#RfC: Should WP:FAMILY be deleted from WP:SOCK? (Initiated 3158 days ago on 3 April 2016)? Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would someone please close Template talk:Rfd2#RfC: Proposal to simplify the substituted output of Rfd2? Thanks! (Initiated 3120 days ago on 11 May 2016) Steel1943 (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015#Request for Comment: Which Infobox? (Choice of Two) (Initiated 3129 days ago on 2 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Four Noble Truths#RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths (Initiated 3128 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This is an RfC about Wikidata fields in infoboxes. The 30-day period will run at 20:59 (UTC). I'll start work on closing this one at that time. Co-closers are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've boxed it up and asked for additional comments. Co-closers still welcome, for now. Unwatching here. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Dank. There is further discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:VPP#Closing. Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This discussion needs an experienced closer. (Initiated 3149 days ago on 12 April 2016) ~ RobTalk 05:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Hilton Worldwide#Request for comment: Blackstone Group in the infobox (Initiated 3126 days ago on 5 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I was just looking for a place to request help closing this discussion. I'd like to second User:Cunard's request. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Update: This has been addressed. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Let us close it then, shall we? {{Already done}} by non-admin St170e (courtesy ping, in case I missed something). TigraanClick here to contact me 16:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Top Model (Scandinavia)#Which table should be used in the article? (Initiated 3130 days ago on 1 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Merge A9 into A7? (Initiated 3099 days ago on 1 June 2016)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 Stanley Cup Finals#RFC: Stanley Cup Finals vs. Final (Initiated 3130 days ago on 1 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Princess Beatrice of York#Section on weight struggles (Initiated 3134 days ago on 27 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts#RfC: Result of the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War (Initiated 3153 days ago on 8 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:World Wide Web#Robert Cailliau ? (Initiated 3113 days ago on 18 May 2016)? The question posed was:
Should Robert Cailliau be listed in the lead as equal co-inventor of the web, alongside Tim Berners-Lee? There is edit-warring going on at present to push this into the article. [2] [3] (and others).
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} – EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It's been a month, and the RfC has expired. Need an admin to close the RfC and potentially open a phab ticket. (Initiated 3105 days ago on 26 May 2016) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin/experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#RfC: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups? (Initiated 3133 days ago on 28 April 2016)? Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} – see below. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#RfC: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups? (Initiated 3133 days ago on 28 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by administrator User:Doug Weller. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- And it's a dupe. – once again, Cunard doesn't check before spamming ANRFC with new entries... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
This needs an accurate analysis before a closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3211 days ago on 10 February 2016)
- This is now located in an archive at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 21. Someone willing to dig into one of the lamest contentious discussions of all time should assess whether it's worth dragging out of an archive or not. ~ RobTalk 13:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Since numerous editors considered the discussion worth discussion, and since George Ho wants an accurate summary of the discussion, I agree with George Ho's request for closure. That some editors consider it "lame" does not detract from other editors' considering it important and worthy of closure (evidenced by the extensive, passionate discussion).
Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- How about method 2? Or another method: click "edit" button at the Archive page and write the rationale. --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Since numerous editors considered the discussion worth discussion, and since George Ho wants an accurate summary of the discussion, I agree with George Ho's request for closure. That some editors consider it "lame" does not detract from other editors' considering it important and worthy of closure (evidenced by the extensive, passionate discussion).
- This doesn't need a close, being effectively moot. RM has continued to follow MOS on this, and despite a few voices in support of sweeping change to treatment of short prepositions on Wikipedia (even having a magically special variant rule for songs), nothing like a consensus arose for this, the matter was sourced into the ground (both as to what different genres of sources do, and why WP uses the rule it does, in keeping with the centrist, non-extreme treatment in RS), and whatever stress and productivity drain was involved in the discussion, the qualify of the relevant RM discussions has improved, with actual examination of whether something's a preposition or not, instead of rants along the lines of "since Rolling Stone writes it this way, WP must also". There really is nothing to do. Not every discussion needs a formal closure, and a conclusion of "there isn't a clear consensus to change anything" certainly doesn't need one. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I hope a fresher discussion should be more constructive than this one. It was less managed and disorganized. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MDMA/Archive 7#RfC: How big should the "note" be after the first sentence? (Initiated 3159 days ago on 2 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an editor please assess the consensus at this RfC at Talk:1_metre (Initiated 3175 days ago on 17 March 2016)? It is not extremely contentious but there is no large support for a single action. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Jolly#RFC: Appropriate language for Wikipedia reference (Initiated 3151 days ago on 10 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John Carter (film)#RfC: Which figure should go in the budget field in the infobox? (Initiated 3148 days ago on 13 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of youngest birth mothers#RfC Teenage category (Initiated 3135 days ago on 26 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This discussion needs an experienced closer quickly; it involves the application of a new protection level to address an ongoing issue of disruption. ~ RobTalk 03:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}}Tazerdadog (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Potato chip#RfC: Should the history of potato chips use a WP:RS tabloid broadsheet newspaper article as reliable source (Initiated 3126 days ago on 5 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Potato chip#RFC: Should the caption include "crisps" as well as "chips"? (Initiated 3118 days ago on 13 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Tazerdadog. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4 (Initiated 3114 days ago on 17 May 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Mdann52. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cary Grant#RfC on Gay allegations (Initiated 3098 days ago on 2 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
This RfC is more than thirty days old, and Legobot has deleted the RfC template, but the discussion has not been formally closed. Comments have generally tended in a certain direction, but many have been somewhat equivocal ("It depends"), so a formal judgment seems desirable. (Initiated 3101 days ago on 30 May 2016) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stanley Milgram#Request for Comment: Should the parameter "Religion: Jewish" be included in this article? (Initiated 3129 days ago on 2 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joseph Conrad#Rfc: Joseph Conrad's Nationality (Initiated 3128 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please take at look at a merge discussion at Talk:Group of Eight/Archive 2#Merge request 6 June 2016 (Initiated 3106 days ago on 25 May 2016) and judge if consensus has been achieved. If consensus is Yes then please close the discussion and I will merge. If consensus is No then I won't! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Stop to following me or ban that person from my editing (Initiated 3083 days ago on 17 June 2016)? See the closure request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Archived without admin ruling:
This discussion was archived without ever being actioned by admins- the consensus seems to have been for a topic ban, but we need an admin to rule on it, or unarchive it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree this should be closed. I would unarchive it and close it myself but I was involved in the discussion. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 01:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Keilana. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#RfC: Should the Orlando shooting be included in this list? (Initiated 3077 days ago on 23 June 2016)? While it has been less than the required 30 days, see the discussion here which supports someone closing it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
An uninvolved but competent editor is needed. George Ho (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:YouTube#RfC: Lists of countries using YouTube and of media encoding options (Initiated 3169 days ago on 23 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have closed the discussion on the talk page, as a general consensus was reached to keep the table in a collapsed format. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Marking as {{done}} for the bot. Thank you, RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs), for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have closed the discussion on the talk page, as a general consensus was reached to keep the table in a collapsed format. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Please formally close this Rfc I opened, because it is about a contentious area. (Initiated 3107 days ago on 24 May 2016) Debresser (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Dionysodorus (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Some requests have been made at this RfC to have an experienced editor read over, and close the discussion. Thanks in advance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3120 days ago on 11 May 2016)
- no real need to weigh the rfc as has become moot at this point..there was an afd that resulted in keep but led to the article being hugely altered to the point that the discussion is now irrelevant..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Dionysodorus (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Internet fraud/Archives/2016#RfC: Do articles like this contribute to fraud? (poll) (Initiated 3128 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Dionysodorus (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal#RfC: Should the source comparing Mein Kampf to Art of the Deal be included? (Initiated 3130 days ago on 1 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Dionysodorus (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Anarchism sidebar#RfC: Anarcho-capitalism and its place in this template (Initiated 3132 days ago on 29 April 2016)? There is a clear consensus to include anarcho-capitalism in the template, but the consensus is not as clear on where it should be placed in the template. Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Dionysodorus (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emma Watson#Emma Watson and the Panama Papers (Initiated 3120 days ago on 11 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Neutralitytalk 04:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Marking as {{done}} for the bot. Thank you, Neutrality (talk · contribs), for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Confirm on save when adding links to disambiguation pages (Initiated 3120 days ago on 11 May 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This needs a conclusion. George Ho (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- For the sake of templating: (Initiated 3096 days ago on 4 June 2016). TigraanClick here to contact me 17:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lone wolf (terrorism)#RFC for inclusion (Initiated 3101 days ago on 30 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Dionysodorus (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
(Initiated 3075 days ago on 25 June 2016). Last !vote was five days ago. Thanks. - MrX 17:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Dionysodorus (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Requesting a formal closure to this discussion so the consensus can be enforced. czar 14:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} The discussion led to the Japanese text remaining in the lede. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Armenian Genocide#RfC for Medz Yeghern as an alternative name (Initiated 3135 days ago on 26 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by User:Maunus - marking for the bot. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Someone familiar with comic books might be best for this, but that might not be necessary: After five contentious weeks, an overwhelming majority of experienced, veteran WikiProject Comics editors all agree on one side, and only one person, who has rejected two offers of compromise, remains arguing the other side. It's getting a little rancorous, with the same arguments being repeated, so hopefully someone can close it. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- I humbly ask that someone please close this quickly, as, after more than five weeks, it has become increasingly rancorous, with verbal attacks and name-calling. For the good of WikiProject Comics, please close it soon.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
(Initiated 3120 days ago on 11 May 2016)?
{{Done}}. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Matrix#RfC: How should the directors of this film be presented in the lead? (Initiated 3121 days ago on 10 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've seen a couple admins state they don't really look at these requests these days since a couple users started adding them en masse. So I thought I'd add here that this is one that really does need admin attention given the potential implications for interpreting WP:GENDERID and WP:BLP. The article is also subject to very frequent edit warring over a long period of time on the basis of what this RfC seeks to address. There are decent arguments on all sides, but there really needs to be an outcome. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} for the bot. I'm not an admin, but I hope I've provided a reasonable summary of the consensus there. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gary Cooper#RfC: Adding mention of Anderson Lawler (Initiated 3115 days ago on 16 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} This was closed by User:maunus. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought about requesting closure of three in one section, but I am not confident about one person reviewing all three. The topic of the discussion is a little more complex. --George Ho (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- For the sake of templating: (Initiated 3088 days ago on 12 June 2016). TigraanClick here to contact me 17:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} by User:Maunus - marking for the bot. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought about requesting closure of three in one section, but I am not confident about one person reviewing all three. The topic of the discussion is kinda simplistic, yet integrity is involved. --George Ho (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- For the sake of templating: (Initiated 3088 days ago on 12 June 2016). TigraanClick here to contact me 17:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} by User:Maunus - marking for the bot. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought about requesting closure of three in one section, but I am not confident about one person reviewing all three. The topic of the discussion is some sort of classification in prose. --George Ho (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- For the sake of templating: (Initiated 3085 days ago on 15 June 2016). TigraanClick here to contact me 17:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} by User:Maunus - marking for the bot. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chris Kyle#Chris Kyle medals RfC (Initiated 3097 days ago on 3 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Consensus was reached to not include material from unofficial, non-reliable sources. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists#RfC on numbers of aircraft built in lists (Initiated 3098 days ago on 2 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Multi-sport event#RfC: Can an acceptable definition be written for Category:Sports festivals? (Initiated 3127 days ago on 4 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of world snooker champions#RfC: Should player highlighting indicate whether a player has "competed" or is "active"? (Initiated 3128 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Falklands War#RFC:Inclusion of material related to Norwegian listening station (Initiated 3107 days ago on 24 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request DYK topic ban (Initiated 3076 days ago on 24 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. That was hard. Deryck C. 12:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury#Request for comment made (Initiated 3119 days ago on 12 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Common law#Request for comment on "three connotations" (Initiated 3104 days ago on 27 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC: Is it time to relax a bit on WP:NOSHARE? (Initiated 3132 days ago on 29 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#RfC: Which romanization system should be used for pre-division Korean topics? (Initiated 3128 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by SMcCandlish. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Time (Electric Light Orchestra album)#RfC: Should Wiki-voice view Time as a story? Keep "Storyline"? (Initiated 3132 days ago on 29 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Please close the merge discussion of time loop and time slip into time travel in fiction. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3117 days ago on 14 May 2016)
- {{Done}} - jc37 06:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I make a formal request for closure of this RfC. I believe there is consensus around the proposal made by Special:Contributions/87.162.74.84 (Initiated 3106 days ago on 25 May 2016). 79.64.199.8 (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- That "consensus" was suddenly established in a later section to make an edit that basically runs against the RfC proposed (and majority-supported) version looks very dubious to me, to say the least. It is unclear if you request the close of the RfC that really runs (Initiated 3128 days ago on 3 May 2016) or of a section that is not a proper WP:RFC. I smell something fishy with that close request. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- It appears to me that the later section is part of the original RfC. See [4]. 79.64.199.8 (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Is closure still required on this, or can I delist it? It has now been listed so long that it has been allowed to be archived. I will delist if no objections arise. Dionysodorus (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 14#RFC: Suggestion: Visual Editor Version (Initiated 3126 days ago on 5 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- This has now been allowed to be archived. I see little point in closing and will delist this if no objections. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Proposed draftspace deletion RFC
Would someone (not necessarily an admin) close the RFC about a proposed draftspace deletion? (archive 128) (Initiated 3111 days ago on 20 May 2016) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (finally) Dionysodorus (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:NHL 15#Should New Features be included on NHL articles (Initiated 3113 days ago on 18 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Judith Wilyman PhD controversy/Archive 1#RFC: Reasons for not promoting a conference (Initiated 3109 days ago on 22 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Clarification of BIO1E (Initiated 3098 days ago on 2 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Dionysodorus (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your hard work at WP:ANRFC, Dionysodorus (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#RfC: Grant exemptions to users in good standing on request (Initiated 3108 days ago on 23 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your detailed assessment of the consensus, Andy M. Wang (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)