Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

→

Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Resysop criteria: RfC on principles

(Initiated 1743 days ago on 20 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Resysop criteria: RfC on principles? Thank you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} by Primefac (talk · contribs) yesterday Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting#Naming the victims

(Initiated 1699 days ago on 2 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting#Naming the victims? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} Cinderella157 (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Calvin Cheng#RFC: COI edit request re: AMIP lawsuit

(Initiated 1826 days ago on 28 April 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Calvin Cheng#RFC: COI edit request re: AMIP lawsuit? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Mgasparin (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 18#Template:2019 Netherlands Women's Quadrangular Series

(Initiated 1717 days ago on 15 August 2019) already relisted 3 times, no new discussion since the last relist. Frietjes (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Mgasparin (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 19#Las Blancas

(Initiated 1738 days ago on 24 July 2019) Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. (I just relisted this one yesterday, but I did not realize how old this discussion was until today [which is a bit of a silly oversight on my part, considering I've relisted this discussion multiple times.] Of course, per WP:RELIST, since the initial 7-day period has long-passed, if consensus can be assessed, the discussion can be closed at any time.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I went intending to close the discussion, but decided that I could better serve it through participating in it. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Fish+Karate 11:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Add 'create an article' option in the interface

(Initiated 1756 days ago on 7 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Add 'create an article' option in the interface? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}--GRuban (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Noah Kraft#RfC about use of YouTube video as primary source for lead

(Initiated 1696 days ago on 5 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Noah Kraft#RfC about use of YouTube video as primary source for lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} Cinderella157 (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:NYC Pride March#RfC: On São Paulo content

(Initiated 1751 days ago on 11 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:NYC Pride March#RfC: On São Paulo content? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} --GRuban (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:African Americans#RfC: Should this article have this lead image?

(Initiated 1688 days ago on 13 September 2019)

No comments for more than a week. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Mgasparin (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Dorsal column–medial lemniscus pathway

(Initiated 2172 days ago on 17 May 2018) Would an uninvolved editor please review this merge proposal discussion? There is an analogous discussion in the immediately preceding section related to the Cuneate fasciculus. These anatomy discussions involve proposals to merge Cuneate fasciculus and Gracile fasciculus into Dorsal column–medial lemniscus pathway, with a counter-proposal to merge the fasciculi into their respective nuclei. Klbrain (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Mgasparin (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 33#Use of "Alma mater"

(Initiated 2134 days ago on 23 June 2018)

This discussion was archived without closure a while ago. Please let me know if it is too late for closure on this. Thanks! Dathus • Talk Contribs 22:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Honestly, though, if there were a consensus to change that no one implemented for a year and a half, that could have been a problem, since just inaction would have been an argument that change wasn't that necessary. --GRuban (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox military unit

(Initiated 1666 days ago on 4 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox military unit? Thanks, Ckfasdf (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf: After just ten days, with discussion still ongoing? {{Not done}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination)

(Initiated 1699 days ago on 1 September 2019) This AfD has been closed three times (once by me), with each close being voided for various reasons. The discussion is now coming up on six weeks. Somebody needs to put it out of its misery. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Fish+Karate 10:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 22#"Manned" renaming

(Initiated 1741 days ago on 22 July 2019)Could an experienced editor close the currently oldest open XfD discussion. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Fish+Karate 13:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Next United Kingdom general election#RfC about the infobox

(Initiated 1743 days ago on 19 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election#RfC about the infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

{{Already done}} Was closed by S_Marshall on 13 October. Fish+Karate 08:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Naming conventions for public statues

(Initiated 1741 days ago on 21 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Naming conventions for public statues? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Fish+Karate 08:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Alt-right#RfC about the opening sentence

(Initiated 1739 days ago on 23 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alt-right#RfC about the opening sentence? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} --GRuban (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161#OpenStreetMap

(Initiated 1727 days ago on 4 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161#OpenStreetMap? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Doing. ∯WBG^converse 03:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by WBG --DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC about station layouts and exits

(Initiated 1697 days ago on 4 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC about station layouts and exits? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} by Mgasparin. — JFG ^talk 01:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Abby Martin#RfC: 9/11 Truther

(Initiated 1739 days ago on 23 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abby Martin#RfC: 9/11 Truther? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by S Marshall. Politrukki (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:TERF#RfC: How should we attribute "transphobic"?

(Initiated 1698 days ago on 3 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:TERF#RfC: How should we attribute "transphobic"?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by Johnuniq. ToThAc (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 3#Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism

(Initiated 1729 days ago on 3 August 2019) Could an experienced and uninvolved editor please review this discussion. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 14:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: {{done}}. ToThAc (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 13#Europe-wide_organizations

(Initiated 1773 days ago on 20 June 2019) Would an experienced editor close this very old CfD? --Trialpears (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 4#Category:Institutes of the Roman Curia

(Initiated 1739 days ago on 24 July 2019) Would an experience editor please close this discussion? --Trialpears (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by MER-C. ToThAc (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: "The Western Journal" (September)

(Initiated 1691 days ago on 9 September 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: "The Western Journal" (September)? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 00:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Politrukki (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Century#RFC: Are August 2019 edits in accord with March 2019 RFC above?

(Initiated 1701 days ago on 31 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Century#RFC: Are August 2019 edits in accord with March 2019 RFC above?? I closed the March 2019 RfC and will leave this RfC to another closer. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

{{Already done}} by S Marshall. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153#RFC:Purposes of Portals (19 July 2019)

(Initiated 1744 days ago on 19 July 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please asses the consensus at this RFC: Purposes of Portals (19 July 2019) RfC on the purposes of portals? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Fish+Karate 10:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films

(Initiated 1689 days ago on 11 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Doing... Will close this up by tomorrow. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#Rfc on including Junius Ho in the infobox of this article which use Template:Infobox civil conflict

(Initiated 1719 days ago on 12 August 2019) Seeking an experienced and uninvolved editor to assess the consensus at Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#Rfc on including Junius Ho in the infobox of this article which use Template:Infobox civil conflict. Matthew hk (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Doing... Will close this by tomorrow. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Opinion polling for the next Italian general election#RfC on "Government/Other" columns

(Initiated 1701 days ago on 30 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Opinion polling for the next Italian general election#RfC on "Government/Other" columns? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No new input since 20 September 2019, the bot removed the RfC tag at 19:01, 29 September 2019‎ (UTC). Needs consensus assessment and subsequent closure by an uninvolved editor. Impru20^talk 15:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Fish+Karate 14:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Transgender#RfC: How to word the WP:LEAD

(Initiated 1688 days ago on 13 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Transgender#RfC: How to word the WP:LEAD]? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by S Marshall. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Democrat Party#RfC: Should this disambiguation page include an entry to Democratic Party (United States)?

(Initiated 1684 days ago on 17 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Democrat Party#RfC: Should this disambiguation page include an entry to Democratic Party (United States)?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural Catholic#Proposed merge with Cafeteria Catholicism

(Initiated 2102 days ago on 26 July 2018) Could an uninvolved editor please review this merger proposal of Cultural Catholic and Cafeteria Catholicism. Klbrain (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Fish+Karate 14:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Right-wing populism#RfC: Inclusion of Bannon material

(Initiated 1689 days ago on 11 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Right-wing populism#RfC: Inclusion of Bannon material? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by S Marshall --DannyS712 (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (plurals)#'Measurements involving two or more units (such as pounds per square inch or miles per hour) should usually have the first word in the plural'

(Initiated 2511 days ago on 12 June 2017) This is my earnest request to an uninvolved editor to review this discussion! --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: {{done}}. ToThAc (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bulgarian Empire

(Initiated 1660 days ago on 10 October 2019) Could an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by Northamerica1000 --DannyS712 (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Missouri

(Initiated 1660 days ago on 10 October 2019) Could an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by Killiondude. ToThAc (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 13#Portal:Victoria

(Initiated 1658 days ago on 13 October 2019) Could an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} bd2412 T 15:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Serbia#RfC regarding infobox

(Initiated 1687 days ago on 14 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Serbia#RfC regarding infobox]? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} – comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli settlement#RFC on Bill in Republic of Ireland

(Initiated 1682 days ago on 18 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus here please. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} on 20 October 2019. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Walmart Canada Bank#Removed Schedule II Banks of Canada category

(Initiated 1657 days ago on 13 October 2019) Could an administrator, or a non-involved editor, please assess consensus and close the RfC at Walmart Canada Bank#Removed Schedule II Banks of Canada category? No one seems to have objected to my untagging that redirect article with the given category for my given rationale. Any comments have been just that - comments. --Doug Mehus (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal talk:Law#Proposed portal mergers

(Initiated 1680 days ago on 21 September 2019) Please review and close the two merger proposals under this heading. Note that we have a volunteer to carry out the first merger, if it is determined that there is consensus to merge. Thank you. bd2412 T 00:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs

(Initiated 1749 days ago on 14 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 17:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger:

Closed main discussion; keeping the others open for now due to insufficient discussion. ToThAc (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The remaining discussions don't need to be pinned, since they've already been open for comment for three months. — Newslinger talk 19:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Is further action required here? If so, please remove the |done=y; if not, please add one of these templates - {{resolved}}, {{done}}, {{already done}}, {{not done}}, {{close}} - to your post in order to attract the attention of ClueBot III (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll mark this as {{already done}}. Thanks, Redrose64. — Newslinger talk 21:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Apple Inc.#Requested move 24 October 2019

(Initiated 1646 days ago on 24 October 2019) Would a non-involved administrator, or an experienced editor, assess the consensus and close this discussion? We're at nine (9) oppose/strong oppose, all with the same or similar reasons, several comments and replies, and no sign of consensus going in favour of the nomination. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not just let the other 2 days go and it'll be closed like any other RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: Oh, you're an administrator? I didn't know that. But what do you mean by "close like any other RM"? I didn't think RMs closed by themselves; someone had to find it, close it if they felt comfortable doing so and had the necessary permissions, or an involved person had to request closure here. --Doug Mehus (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm just meaning wait until the 7 days have expired and it will fall into WP:RME (which many editors monitor) in which case an uninvlved user will close it (unless something changes) as not moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: Ah, okay, wasn't aware of that WP:RME page. That makes sense. How come some the move discussions listed below are so old, then? That is, how come editors haven't caught these, determined consensus (if any, or if no objections, closed as no objection) until now? (Sidebar: When I read your username each time, I keep thinking you're a law firm. LOL)--Doug Mehus (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: because the 7 days hasn't elapsed yet, as it says at WP:RME "The 7-day listing period has elapsed". Most discussions that have a clear consensus are closed shortly after they reach the 7 days of listing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale:, thanks again, but think you misunderstood my question. I wonder why those move discussions had to get listed here? I see some were malformed or did not use a proper consensus-building RfC or RM process, so that's one reason. Is another reason that some page moves get missed at WP:RME? Doug Mehus (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: You don't need to be an administrator to give advice on this page. Indeed, you asked for "... or an experienced editor" - and Crouch, Swale is experienced. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks, for clarity, I wasn't suggesting Crouch, Swale wasn't an experienced editor; quite the contrary. I just didn't realize that editors could also reply to this page. I also see that editors can participate in WP:ANI discussions, providing comments, insight, citing policies, etc., so, really, are there any pages whereby only admins are preferred to reply? Doug Mehus (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} – I've closed it as not moved per unanimous opposition. Not a chance that one more day of debate would swing the outcome. — JFG ^talk 06:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Thanks. That was my thinking. I figured an editor following WP:RME would timely close this WP:RM, but seeing as it was strong, well-cited unanimous opposition, it seemed sort of like, why bother waiting? Possibly the easiest consensus determination ever. ;-)Doug Mehus (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#RfC on inclusion of claims in Panorama documentary and 64 peers' letter (advertisement)

(Initiated 1742 days ago on 20 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10#RfC on inclusion of claims in Panorama documentary and 64 peers' letter (advertisement)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} --GRuban (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany#RfC: "By Region" section

(Initiated 1733 days ago on 29 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany#RfC: "By Region" section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by User:S Marshall, showing creativity. --GRuban (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Woman suffrage parade of 1913#Requested move 6 October 2019

(Initiated 1664 days ago on 6 October 2019) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus for moving page to "Woman suffrage procession (1913)" and not to the requested move title (or keeping as is) and please formally close the discussion at Talk:Woman suffrage parade of 1913#Requested move 6 October 2019. --Biotech46 (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by Red Slash 05:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC) – P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 09:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Massachusetts

(Initiated 1660 days ago on 10 October 2019) Could an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by BD2412 --DannyS712 (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Montenegrin language#RfC about minority languages in infobox

(Initiated 1706 days ago on 26 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Montenegrin language#RfC about minority languages in infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Wug·a·po·des 05:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)#RfC: Should "country" be kept as a genre in the infobox?

(Initiated 1669 days ago on 2 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)#RfC: Should "country" be kept as a genre in the infobox?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} feminist (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox military unit/Archive 1#RfC on the usage of native_name field

(Initiated 1669 days ago on 2 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox military unit/Archive 1#RfC on the usage of native_name field? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Close}}--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death/Archive 1#RfC: Mention of Abel Basti and or his work

(Initiated 1688 days ago on 12 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death/Archive 1#RfC: Mention of Abel Basti and or his work? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions#Relationship of Articles for Creation and New Page Reviewer

(Initiated 1667 days ago on 4 October 2019) Would an experienced editor asses the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions#Relationship of Articles for Creation and New Page Reviewer? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by Primefac - [1] --DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of Solar System exploration#Proposed split/merge

(Initiated 1839 days ago on 14 April 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thank you. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology#RfC again

(Initiated 1678 days ago on 23 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology#RfC again? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Close}} --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Australian rules football

(Initiated 1655 days ago on 15 October 2019) Could an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by Scottywong --DannyS712 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Basketball

(Initiated 1655 days ago on 15 October 2019) Please could an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by Scottywong --DannyS712 (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spurs

(Initiated 1655 days ago on 16 October 2019) Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spurs. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by Britishfinance. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hijiri88

(Initiated 1643 days ago on 28 October 2019) Could an uninvolved administrator please take a look at this discussion and close it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} by Scottywong. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6#RfC: Header text

(Initiated 1780 days ago on 12 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6#RfC: Header text? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Doing... Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Steven Crossin: Are you still doing this? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Since it's been a month since a previous editor expressed interest in closing with no change, I've gone ahead and closed it with a rough consensus in favor of including the proposed text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about the MEK's appeal in its homeland

(Initiated 1709 days ago on 23 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about the MEK's appeal in its homeland? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed with no consensus ...established for making the proposed edits. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:David Koch#Lede rfc

(Initiated 1703 days ago on 29 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Koch#Lede rfc? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed with no consensus to including the information in the lede.(non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_31#Category:Favourite_subject_user_templates

(Initiated 1713 days ago on 18 August 2019) Could an uninvolved experienced editor close this discussion? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. ToThAc (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:U.S. state#Request for comment on state-equivalents

(Initiated 1700 days ago on 1 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:U.S. state#Request for comment on state-equivalents? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as a rough consensus to oppose including these territories in the article. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Stamets#RfC about description of Paul Stamets in the lede

(Initiated 1697 days ago on 3 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Stamets#RfC about description of Paul Stamets in the lede? I am not closing this RfC as some of the supports are qualified supports. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a BLP with FRINGE issues, where there has been SOAP and COI problems. The RfC is a tad vague, but closure would help us move on. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Requesting help. The RfC is fuzzy and not in the formal process. Some closure would inform next steps. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed with a clear consensus that the lede should describe the article subject as a "mycologist". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: books in lead

(Initiated 1694 days ago on 6 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: books in lead? Thanks, ―Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed with a rough consensus to change the text and a narrow consensus to use Option D. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Yet_Another_Proposal

(Initiated 1671 days ago on 30 September 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus and close the discussions on the following proposals? There is the initial "Yet Another Proposal" which as gone stale, which was then broken up into 4 parts in the "Last Attempt" (1, 2, 3, 4), and the alternative proposal. Thanks. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by Ymblanter --DannyS712 (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Page_mover#User:Störm

(Initiated 1637 days ago on 2 November 2019) Any uninvloved admin may close this remaining request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Page_mover#User:Störm by me. Thanks. Störm (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by Primefac (talk) at 22:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC) – P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 00:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Seeking de-escalation de-escalation over at User talk:Dennis Bratland#Kinda bitey reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett

(Initiated 1633 days ago on 6 November 2019) Could an administrator assess the ANI incident and determine whether it had been amicably resolved between the two involved editors, Dennis Bratland, and myself and action appropriately? Thanks. (Note: we seemed to have resolved things amicably, so am just seeking a determination that this was the case and for case closure.) --Doug Mehus (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by Britishfinance --DannyS712 (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of music considered the worst#RFC for album inclusion

(Initiated 1701 days ago on 30 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of music considered the worst#RFC for album inclusion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Will do. ∯WBG^converse 03:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you doing? --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}} After relative silence on the prior close attempts, I have closed with a rough consensus to oppose these qualifications as written. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Northwest Detention Center#Merger proposal

(Initiated 1682 days ago on 18 September 2019) Merger proposal awaiting closure czar 04:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}}N2e (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#RfC about tagging redirects

(Initiated 1677 days ago on 24 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#RfC about tagging redirects? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} — Newslinger talk 07:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Redirect#RfC on introducing redirects

(Initiated 1674 days ago on 26 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#RfC on introducing redirects? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

{{already done}} by S Marshall. — Newslinger talk 07:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lighthouses

(Initiated 1640 days ago on 30 October 2019) Would an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion? Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Close}} by Scottywong AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Catch_21/1

(Initiated 1652 days ago on 19 October 2019) Please review this reassessment. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Close}} Consensus to keep. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC about the media being "hostile" or "negative" towards Corbyn

(Initiated 1653 days ago on 17 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC about the media being "hostile" or "negative" towards Corbyn? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{already done}} by S Marshall (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 7#Josh Murty

(Initiated 1644 days ago on 27 October 2019) Please relist or review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} – P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 05:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 World Rally Championship

(Initiated 1828 days ago on 26 April 2019) Would an experienced editor or administrator please review this discussion? An older discussion on the subject exists and might need to be considered as well.T v x1 11:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Will someone please assess this discussion? This request has been open for months.T v x1 12:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Mgasparin (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Liliputing

(Initiated 1667 days ago on 3 October 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Liliputing? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 09:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality#Request for Comment: Claims of historian John Boswell

(Initiated 1667 days ago on 4 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality#Request for Comment: Claims of historian John Boswell? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October)

(Initiated 1656 days ago on 15 October 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October)? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 08:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_9#Template:Rfl

(Initiated 1648 days ago on 23 October 2019) It seems that all the active RfD closers have expressed an opinion in this discussion, so we need a fresh pair of eyes to come in and close the discussion. Deryck C. 12:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 00:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by mazca 22:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC). P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 07:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023#IiKkEe's proposed editing restrictions and WP:ROPE

(Initiated 1627 days ago on 13 November 2019)

Could significantly benefit from an official close and statement on IiKkEe's talk page about the close, given the seriousness of the thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. [2] starship .paint (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Siouxsie Sioux#Request for comments 2019

(Initiated 1676 days ago on 25 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Siouxsie Sioux#Request for comments 2019? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 11:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Microbial symbiosis and immunity#Requested move 20 November 2019

(Initiated 1619 days ago on 20 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Microbial symbiosis and immunity#Requested move 20 November 2019 about closing and moving the article? Thanks, Phillipebrown (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

{{not done}}. RMs run a minimum of 7 days, and this one isn't old enough yet to close. Suggest we rely upon the RM system to close this request when the time comes. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 22:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Clarification Request: The outcome of the most recent XfD being "keep" excludes any page otherwise eligible for G13

(Initiated 1663 days ago on 8 October 2019) Seeking a formal closure by an uninvolved editor. I believe the consensus is quite clear but because this will codify a specific understanding regardin MFD and CSD:G13, I am seeking a formal closure so that editors substituting their judgement are met with consensus based rejection. Hasteur (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:21 Savage#RfC: Should the first sentence declare that he is British?

(Initiated 1656 days ago on 14 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:21 Savage#RfC: Should the first sentence declare that he is British?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Iffy★Chat -- 19:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev#Proposed moratorium on move requests

(Initiated 1641 days ago on 30 October 2019) This (and the following sections, Poll on how long a moratorium on Requests for Move should be and A sad end to the moratorium?) could do with a close. The discussion follows on from an already-closed RM. Would do it myself, but I think my involvement in the discussion would cause problems. Kahastok talk 19:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

{{already done}} last week. Iffy★Chat -- 19:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:International Brigades#RfC about Soviet citizens in International Brigades

(Initiated 1687 days ago on 14 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Brigades#RfC about Soviet citizens in International Brigades? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Effective altruism#RFC on Key People

(Initiated 1654 days ago on 17 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Effective altruism#RFC on Key People? Thanks Xodarap00 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jeffrey Epstein#RfC: Virginia Giuffre and Bill Clinton

(Initiated 1653 days ago on 17 October 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein#RfC: Virginia Giuffre and Bill Clinton? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 00:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on inclusion criteria for lists of political endorsements

(Initiated 1647 days ago on 23 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on inclusion criteria for lists of political endorsements? Thank you. - Mr X 🖋 18:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Noticed this while at VPP.

Doing.... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

And {{done}} Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Tim Pool#RFC on allegation that Pool promoted Seth Rich conspiracy theory

(Initiated 1646 days ago on 25 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tim Pool#RFC on allegation that Pool promoted Seth Rich conspiracy theory? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Dennis Bonnen#RfC on the consequences of anti-vaccine activism

(Initiated 1642 days ago on 29 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dennis Bonnen#RfC on the consequences of anti-vaccine activism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Bea Miller#Remove the release year from the albums

(Initiated 1639 days ago on 1 November 2019) Please review Template talk:Bea Miller#Remove the release year from the albums. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Sabine Weyand#Request for comments on perceived coat-rack issue

(Initiated 1784 days ago on 9 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sabine Weyand#Request for comments on perceived coat-rack issue? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} Closed as moot due to the acceptance of the "newer" text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:White Croats#RfC about the splitting of the article "White Croats"

(Initiated 1748 days ago on 15 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White Croats#RfC about the splitting of the article "White Croats"? Thanks.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} Closed as no consensus to make the proposed edits. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo#Should the article call Kosovo a state? RfC

(Initiated 1662 days ago on 8 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kosovo#Should the article call Kosovo a state? RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}, closed as no consensus. Invalid^OS (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Propaganda#Request for comment on first images of article

(Initiated 1690 days ago on 11 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Propaganda#Request for comment on first images of article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_22#Islam_by_city

(Initiated 1747 days ago on 15 July 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess consensus in this ancient CfD discussion? Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: {{done}}. ToThAc (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Epoch Times

(Initiated 1663 days ago on 7 October 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Epoch Times? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: {{done}}. ToThAc (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_20#Category:Android_(robot)_fiction

(Initiated 1699 days ago on 1 September 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess consensus in this ancient CfD discussion? Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: {{already done}} by Fayenatic london. ToThAc (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC to delete Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content from WP:CRYSTAL

(Initiated 1665 days ago on 6 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC to delete Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content from WP:CRYSTAL? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Newsweek RfC

(Initiated 1635 days ago on 5 November 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Newsweek RfC? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 13:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

{{already done}} by MJL. — Newslinger talk 20:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Tabiti#Merge

(Initiated 1957 days ago on 17 December 2018) Could someone please try to come to an assessment of whether there is a consensus to merge. Situation has not been made clearer by a few socks being struck, and edit-warring is going on. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:BMW M3#RfC about announcements of future vehicles

(Initiated 1665 days ago on 6 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:BMW M3#RfC about announcements of future vehicles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by El C. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Canadian federal election 1#Request for Comment: Election maps in Canada

(Initiated 1647 days ago on 24 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2019 Canadian federal election 1#Request for Comment: Election maps in Canada? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by Brythones. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC: Does the video cited in the article confirm the claim it is purportedly confirming?

(Initiated 1637 days ago on 2 November 2019) Can an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC: Does the video cited in the article confirm the claim it is purportedly confirming? Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#RFC: Add any foreign countries as "support" of the protesters at infobox

(Initiated 1631 days ago on 8 November 2019) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Purdue University Fort Wayne#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 1838 days ago on 16 April 2019) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:BFR (rocket)#A small step forward, given SpaceX new (once again) renaming of the vehicles

(Initiated 1670 days ago on 1 October 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus in this discussion. Thank you. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

{{not done}} because it is not a merger discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 03:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:ITS launch vehicle#Merger proposal

(Initiated 1667 days ago on 4 October 2019) Could an experienced and uninvolved editor please review this merger proposal. Thank you. N2e (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Review, please. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Woah, no uninvolved editor ever looked at this closure request!? --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Like... seriously this is way overdue. We need to get on with a merger/rename but are waiting on someone to close this. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} by Insertcleverphrasehere, an involved editor. The reason for doing so is because no uninvolved editor came forward to determine the consensus. Uninvolved editors: please do the needful when requested. I shall be highly grateful to you. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 03:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#Why is this called protests, not riots?

(Initiated 1627 days ago on 13 November 2019) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#NPOV issue

(Initiated 1619 days ago on 21 November 2019) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#The article is long. The article is current.

(Initiated 1617 days ago on 23 November 2019) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fencing practice and techniques#Requested move 2 December 2019

(Initiated 1607 days ago on 2 December 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Fencing practice and techniques#Requested move 2 December 2019? Thanks! Jslimmer (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by DannyS712. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 October#Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America

(Initiated 1649 days ago on 21 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 October#Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America? Thank you! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} by qedk at 10:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC) – PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 02:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_December_2#Template:Strife

(Initiated 1618 days ago on 22 November 2019) I think that only an administator can properly close this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

{{already done}} by Trialpears (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 17)#Using first name or surname

(Initiated 1629 days ago on 10 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC atTalk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 17)#Using first name or surname? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jo-Ann Roberts#RFC about notability tag

(Initiated 1625 days ago on 14 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jo-Ann Roberts#RFC about notability tag? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Cunard, thanks for requesting this. Interesting, this was on my to-do list to reach out to you as an experienced, non-involved editor who might be interested in assessing consensus. Nonetheless, I appreciate DannyS712 doing this. Doug Mehus T·C 22:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox film#RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?

(Initiated 1706 days ago on 26 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox film#RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Archived to Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 30#RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs? without closure. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Unarchived to provide formal close as a rough consensus to judiciously credit additional composers. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: Do sources support calling Ngo's statements on the hammer attack "false"?

(Initiated 1691 days ago on 9 September 2019) RfC requesting an admin closing. Thanks, Springee (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

{{DONE}} Closed as no consensus for the proposed inclusion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bell Media Radio#Streaming radio network affiliation?

(Initiated 1661 days ago on 9 October 2019) Would a non-involved editor/administrator please assess the consensus for this expired RfC, which Legobot dropped? There seems to be no opposition, but it would be nice to have this assessed, possibly wrapped in the optional RfC closure tags of your choice. Alternatively, if you know of a way to restart the RfC, that would be fine as well. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Legobot "dropped" it because thirty days had elapsed. WP:RFC#Restarting an RfC explains how an RfC may be extended. But if nobody (other than myself, who frankly doesn't care about the matter) commented there the first time, the chances of more people coming along are small. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, Thanks, as a non-involved participant, can you close it as "no opposition" in more than a month? I just want something to go back on if I make the changes and it gets reverted, I can say that it was proposed without opposition—of course, someone is welcome to restart a new discussion, but at least we'd have some consensus determination on file. Doug Mehus T·C 00:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as No opposition expressed. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers#RfC about the examples of local names

(Initiated 1679 days ago on 22 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers#RfC about the examples of local names? The RfC initiator wrote, "I stand by my decision to start this discussion until it is legitimately closed (preferably by an admin)" in response to an RfC participant writing, "This Rfc is not an Rfc; rather, it is a free-ranging discussion about how to improve a proposed new project subpage recommendation." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as no consensus after nearly 3 months with extremely limited participation.(non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 August#General American English

(Initiated 1705 days ago on 26 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 August#General American English? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Iffy★Chat -- 18:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Bad (3rd nomination)

(Initiated 1606 days ago on 3 December 2019) Note: was last relisted on December 11. Discussion is no longer productive. Looking for a close. Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

{{already done}} by BD2412 (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungle Kekoo

(Initiated 1589 days ago on 20 December 2019) Page speedily deleted under G11 after nom. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 01:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Marvin Minsky#RfC on Giuffre/Epstein issue

(Initiated 1691 days ago on 9 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marvin Minsky#RfC on Giuffre/Epstein issue? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} -- llywrch (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Quackwatch

(Initiated 1631 days ago on 8 November 2019) When the time comes, could a completely uninvolved admin, and ideally more than one, close this, please? It has policy implications, so I'm asking that it be closed by an admin/admins with no prior involvement in these type of discussions. Pinging Newslinger, who opened the RfC. Newslinger, I hope you don't mind that I posted this. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this request, SarahSV. This RfC is a centralized discussion, and multiple editors have requested a closure by a panel of uninvolved administrators. — Newslinger talk 18:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

{{already done}} by Jo-Jo Eumerus due to lack of volunteers for a panel closure. — Newslinger talk 12:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 217#RFC on Sorting of Names with Particles

(Initiated 1685 days ago on 16 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 217#RFC on Sorting of Names with Particles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Consensus is against either option A or B exclusively. While there is rough consensus for option C (It depends), there is no consensus on what it should depend on. Some commenters say it should depend on the subject's preference; others say to follow the article's sources; yet others say to follow cultural conventions. WP:MCSTJR may provide some guidance. - Mr X 🖋 22:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Veridia#RfC regarding genre

(Initiated 1677 days ago on 23 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Veridia#RfC regarding genre? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} Closed as consensus to list Veridia as an Alternative rock band. No consensus for also listing it as a Christian rock band. - Mr X 🖋 18:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Singapore/Archive 13#RFC regarding the inclusion of Rankings

(Initiated 1674 days ago on 26 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Singapore/Archive 13#RFC regarding the inclusion of Rankings? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Consensus to omit the rankings paragraph in the lead.- Mr X 🖋 18:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict#RFC

(Initiated 1673 days ago on 27 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict#RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as consensus to exclude the proposed paragraph (sentence) from the article. - Mr X 🖋 18:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fred Hampton#RFC on Murder terminology

(Initiated 1668 days ago on 3 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fred Hampton#RFC on Murder terminology? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Taking this one. Due to the holidays & family demands on my time, it may be a few days before I complete this closure. -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as no consensus. (Sorry llywrch, I did not see that you planned to close this until it was too late.) - Mr X 🖋 18:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Right-wing populism#RfC: Is this material linking right-wing populism with fascism UNDUE?

(Initiated 1664 days ago on 7 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Right-wing populism#RfC: Is this material linking right-wing populism with fascism UNDUE?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Consensus is that the proposed material is UNDUE. - Mr X 🖋 19:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RFC on Internet or internet for inclusion in the WP:MOS/CAPS

(Initiated 1661 days ago on 9 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RFC on Internet or internet for inclusion in the WP:MOS/CAPS? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as no consensus. - Mr X 🖋 19:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Lana Del Rey#Lana Del Rey infobox genres

(Initiated 1659 days ago on 12 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC atTalk:Lana Del Rey#Lana Del Rey infobox genres? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Consensus for including the following genres in the infobox: Baroque pop, Dream pop, Rock music. - Mr X 🖋 19:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Emilia Clarke#Request for comment on Including Clarke Dating MacFarlane

(Initiated 1658 days ago on 13 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emilia Clarke#Request for comment on Including Clarke Dating MacFarlane? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Consensus to not include one sentence stating that "Clarke dated actor and comedian Seth MacFarlane from 2012 to 2013". - Mr X 🖋 19:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fianna Fáil#Requests for comment

(Initiated 1657 days ago on 13 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fianna Fáil#Requests for comment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as no consensus. - Mr X 🖋 20:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#RfC: Should Venezuelan crisis-related articles use terms like 'pro-Maduro', and, if not, what alternatives can be used?

(Initiated 1654 days ago on 16 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#RfC: Should Venezuelan crisis-related articles use terms like 'pro-Maduro', and, if not, what alternatives can be used?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as non consensus. - Mr X 🖋 20:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Rojava#RfC: the lede paragraph

(Initiated 1638 days ago on 2 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rojava#RfC: the lede paragraph? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} There is rough consensus for option B. - Mr X 🖋 21:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Sierra McCormick#Should this article have an infobox

(Initiated 1636 days ago on 3 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sierra McCormick#Should this article have an infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Consensus is to retain the infobox. - Mr X 🖋 21:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person#Residence parameter

(Initiated 1635 days ago on 5 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox person#Residence parameter? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} There is consensus to remover the |residence= parameter. - Mr X 🖋 21:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:iPhone 11#RfC about including pricing information in article

(Initiated 1630 days ago on 10 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:iPhone 11#RfC about including pricing information in article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Consensus is against including a chart that includes pricing information of the iPhone 11 in various countries. - Mr X 🖋 20:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Julian Assange#RFC on Julian Assange location and condition

(Initiated 1628 days ago on 12 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian Assange#RFC on Julian Assange location and condition? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} No consensus to include "where United Nations special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has said Assange's life is at risk". Rough consensus to include "Assange is incarcerated in HM Prison Belmarsh". - Mr X 🖋 21:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019_Hong_Kong_protests#Automatic_talk_page_archiving

(Initiated 1620 days ago on 20 November 2019) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Consensus is against changing the talk page archive period to shorter than 14 days. - Mr X 🖋 21:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#RFC - Improving the lede

(Initiated 1689 days ago on 12 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#RFC - Improving the lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} Although closed as "No consensus", I left a suggestion for a path forward to act on the proposed changes. -- llywrch (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Halle synagogue shooting#RFC about article title

(Initiated 1656 days ago on 14 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2019 Halle synagogue shooting#RFC about article title? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Not done and not likely to be done Improper RfC mooted by a subsequent move request. - Mr X 🖋 20:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

{{not done}} as above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC on establishing general sanctions on the topic of Michael Jackson, broadly construed

(Initiated 1583 days ago on 27 December 2019) Would an administrator assess the consensus there? (Though it might not be that hard...) | abequinn^fourteen 05:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Was just gonna file a request here. There's been one vote in the last week and unanimous (-1) consensus. The holding page is Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson. There are templates that need to be made and edited, the closer will need to wrap up all of that too. Any experienced editor can close this too, the consensus is not that hard to assess. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} by someone else. | abequinn^fourteen 21:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161#RFC: Block edits that contain a VisualEditor bug

(Initiated 1697 days ago on 3 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Block edits that contain a VisualEditor bug? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Since the RfC is about the creation of an edit filter, I'm leaving a note at the edit filter noticeboard requesting that it be closed by an edit filter manager; it seems pretty clear that the consensus is for the creation of a filter, but such a decision could only be enacted by an efm. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

{{not done}} because it is an archived discussion. Please revive the discussion to assess the consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 162#Proposal to delete Portal space

(Initiated 1682 days ago on 19 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 162#Proposal to delete Portal space? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

{{not done}} because it is an archived discussion. Please revive the discussion to assess the consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawn as {{not done}} since there is clearly no consensus in the discussion. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 155#Use of direct transclusion in portals and the newer portal transclusion templates

(Initiated 1627 days ago on 13 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 155#Use of direct transclusion in portals and the newer portal transclusion templates? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

{{not done}} because it is an archived discussion. Please revive the discussion to assess the consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Removed not done template. RfCs are regularly closed after they have been archived. That an RfC is archived is not a good reason not to assess the consensus. This RfC appears to have a clear consensus but I am not closing it as it Cunard (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 18#Category:Films based on real people

(Initiated 1664 days ago on 6 October 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess consensus in this ancient CfD discussion? Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This was relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 5#Category:Films based on real people --DannyS712 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
{{already done}} on 5 December by User:DannyS712. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Hana o Pūn / Futari wa NS#Merge discussions

(Initiated 1939 days ago on 4 January 2019) Discussion is about merging Kira Pika to Kirarin Revolution with unclear consensus. lullabying (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Mgasparin (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donajowsky#Article merge

(Initiated 1703 days ago on 28 August 2019) Please review Talk:Donajowsky#Article merge discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Brahma Chellaney

Could an administrator, please, enforce the AfD decision to delete the article on "Brahma Chellaney"? For some unfathomable reason, the article has been allowed to be resurrected by a single-purpose account immediately after the AfD was closed. This discussion did not yield any results. -The Gnome (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I really don't think that this is a matter for WP:ANRFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. But it's been {{done}} anyway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 176#Suppress rendering of Template:Wikipedia books

(Initiated 1725 days ago on 6 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Suppress rendering of Template:Wikipedia books? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Archived without closure at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 176#Suppress rendering of Template:Wikipedia books --DannyS712 (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
{{not done}} per above. Please revive the discussion to assess the consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed not done template. An RfC close would be useful to determine whether the "Create a book" link on the sidebar of every article should be retained or removed. Changing the sidebar is a major decision and whether the discussion affecting the sidebar should be closed should not be dependent upon whether the discussion is archived. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} — Newslinger talk 11:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#RFC on Science of Identity Foundation

(Initiated 1652 days ago on 19 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#RFC on Science of Identity Foundation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} — Newslinger talk 10:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should the Criminal charge label be changed to Criminal charge(s)?

(Initiated 1623 days ago on 17 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should the Criminal charge label be changed to Criminal charge(s)?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} — Newslinger talk 09:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Sarah Palin#RFC about inclusion of a pornography link

(Initiated 1614 days ago on 26 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Sarah Palin#RFC about inclusion of a pornography link? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} — Newslinger talk 09:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Dak To#RfC on pushpin map in Infobox

(Initiated 1612 days ago on 28 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Dak To#RfC on pushpin map in Infobox? The map was first added here on 26 June 2019. There were then a series of reverts involving the map on 26 November 2019 and 27 November 2019 before this RfC was created. If the closer concludes there is no consensus, the closer will need to determine using the guidance in WP:NOCONSENSUS which version the article should default to. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

{{already done}} by Armbrust (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RfC: Within our 200-character limit, does DYK prefer shorter over longer hooks?

(Initiated 1607 days ago on 2 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RfC: Within our 200-character limit, does DYK prefer shorter over longer hooks?? Please close this once 30 days have passed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of surface features of Mars imaged by Spirit#Merge proposal

(Initiated 1612 days ago on 28 November 2019) Please review this discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} by interested party.

Merger complete. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 04:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests#Deliberate omission of context in the lead section

(Initiated 1604 days ago on 6 December 2019) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Not done}}. Since this discussion did not advance a specific proposal, there is not enough context to form a closing statement. If there is disagreement over the topics covered in the discussion, please start a clearly phrased request for comment and request a closure of that. — Newslinger talk 05:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply - Started RFC. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Xinjiang re-education camps#Requested move 16 December 2019

(Initiated 1593 days ago on 16 December 2019) Contentious move request resulting in no obvious consensus. Relisting may be required under a name that would garner more community consensus. Melmann 11:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} — Newslinger talk 05:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Internet Society#RfC on proposed base version of this article.

(Initiated 1590 days ago on 20 December 2019) This RFC was the result of an edit war. There is zero support, apart from the editor who made it, to Keep #2 while there is some tacit support to Restore #1. Can it be resolved, so the article can move on? Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} – EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Jeffrey Epstein#Merger proposal

(Initiated 1639 days ago on 1 November 2019) Although there are still !votes, there have been no new substantive arguments for some time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The last edit was made eight days ago. This merger request is holding up a DYK nomination, so any help with it would be appreciated. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} Melmann 16:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Reactions to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 1605 days ago on 4 December 2019) Please review the split proposal discussion (And a bold spilt was reverted during the discussion) . Matthew hk (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Close}} comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:CNN#Firing of CNN employees in the controversies section

(Initiated 1584 days ago on 25 December 2019) Disagreement over newly added text in the article. The talk page conversation has slowed considerably and the consensus seems reasonably clear, but it would probably be best if an uninvolved editor closed the discussion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Close}} comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Surf culture#Inclusion of image

(Initiated 1581 days ago on 28 December 2019) Disagreement over inclusion of an image in an article. Since there is not much discussion and few editors involved, it might not be appropriate for any involved editor to judge whether there's consensus. 152.208.24.217 (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Close}} comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Greta_Thunberg#"Sharon"

(Initiated 1575 days ago on 3 January 2020) Discussion about Amanda Henderson's use of "Sharon" in guessing Thunberg's name; this topic has turned into a defense of Amanda Henderson and plays no role in improving Thunberg's Wiki-page. Please close. Johnrichardhall (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs) 09:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Wagas#Proposed merge with List of Wagas episodes

(Initiated 1697 days ago on 3 September 2019) Merge discussion started in September 2019 that has had no further comments in the past almost-two-months. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of current senators of Canada#Merger proposal

(Initiated 1620 days ago on 19 November 2019) Could a non-involved editor or administrator assess the consensus and close the merger proposal for the above-captioned page? Note: you do not need to complete the merge as there are a number of willing regular page editors willing to do this. Thanks. --Doug Mehus T·C 20:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} Merge discussion closed. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 02:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (plurals)#'Measurements involving two or more units (such as pounds per square inch or miles per hour) should usually have the first word in the plural'

(Initiated 2510 days ago on 12 June 2017) Any experienced and uninvolved administrator can close this gigantic discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Mgasparin (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Autism#How should those with the condition be referred?

(Initiated 1753 days ago on 10 July 2019) Would an uninvolved editor or administrator please review this discussion? Thank you. Note: This discussion started as an RFC, but the RCF was malformed, so it is not an RFC. Just a regular discussion. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Mgasparin (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Super Audio CD#Rfc: Meyer-Moran paper from 2007 in lead section

(Initiated 1682 days ago on 18 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Super Audio CD#Rfc: Meyer-Moran paper from 2007 in lead section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as no consensus for either inclusion or exclusion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease#RfC: Redirects of "chronic bronchitis" and "emphysema"

(Initiated 1677 days ago on 23 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease#RfC: Redirects of "chronic bronchitis" and "emphysema"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as rough consensus in favor of the redirects as proposed in Option 1.(non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 17#One-day contracts

(Initiated 1730 days ago on 2 August 2019) Could an uninvolved editor please determine a consensus from this discussion about the inclusion of one-day retirement contracts in NFL infoboxes? Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Not done}}. This is the kind of discussion that, even if had been a formal RfC (and it doesn't appear to have been) would not need a formal close. See when to close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I'm not sure I follow, are you referencing the fourth bullet from that section you linked to? Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Eagles247, yes it was stale but I actually should have linked to the section above, specifically the first few sentences of the first paragraph. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: So if I make an edit adding in these one-day retirement contracts to an NFL infobox and link to the archived discussion that was never closed with a consensus, and promptly get reverted by an opposing editor from that discussion, what is the next step here? Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#RfC on booster landings graph

(Initiated 1573 days ago on 6 January 2020) Any uninvolved editor can close this discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by Tercer. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Qasem_Soleimani#RfC:_Should_the_article_say_Soleimani_was_"assassinated"_or_"killed"?

(Initiated 1574 days ago on 4 January 2020) Would an experienced editor review the RfC at Talk:Qasem_Soleimani#RfC:_Should_the_article_say_Soleimani_was_"assassinated"_or_"killed"?, assess consensus and close the discussion? Darren-M talk 14:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by Sandstein (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 18#File:Golden Lion size.jpg

(Initiated 1685 days ago on 15 September 2019) -FASTILY 06:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by Sandstein (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 27#The Gordon Infantry Brigade

(Initiated 1627 days ago on 12 November 2019) -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by Sandstein (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter

(Initiated 1561 days ago on 17 January 2020) 2 days old, but qualifies for a SNOW closure IMHO. I normally wouldn't bother, but it's a topic that's in the news, and the AfD notice prevents it (I assume) from showing up in Google to readers who may be interested in the topic. Sandstein 07:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} by Miraclepine (non-admin closure) --Doug Mehus T·C 21:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nnadigoodluck and WP:BADNAC

(Initiated 1569 days ago on 10 January 2020) - discussion has trailed off, if not ceased, with one or more proposals which appear to have generated some consensus. In the course of the original discussion, the subject of the ANI discussion has even consented to both an administrator-led mentorship arrangement and to voluntarily curtailing his or her XfD closures until conclusion of said mentorship. Would a non-involved administrator assess the consensus of the original discussion and the sub-proposal(s) that have stemmed from said discussion? Thanks. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Not done}} - was archived without closure. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Aaron Hernandez#RfC on the Brain Damage section

(Initiated 1644 days ago on 26 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aaron Hernandez#RfC on the Brain Damage section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure

(Initiated 1653 days ago on 18 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I cannot close this as I participated in the discussion. No clue as to how any closer will handle the consensus (if any) in the workshop section. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} -- llywrch (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia/Archive 1#RfC which version should stay

(Initiated 1629 days ago on 10 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia/Archive 1#RfC which version should stay? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#RfC regarding claimed territorial boundaries of a state

(Initiated 1628 days ago on 11 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#RfC regarding claimed territorial boundaries of a state? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Closed with a finding that there is broader support in the discussion for the position that these issues must be solved on a case-by-case basis rather than through a general rule. BD2412 T 02:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area#RFC Should Palestine be numbered?

(Initiated 1622 days ago on 17 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area#RFC Should Palestine be numbered?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. Clear absence of consensus. BD2412 T 02:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Sublette (surname)#Proposed merge with Soblet

(Initiated 2026 days ago on 9 October 2018) Would an uninvolved editor please summarize and close a merge discussion relating to Soblet and Sublette (surname). Klbrain (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Closed as no consensus. BD2412 T 02:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1024#Propose 1RR for AP2 for Snooganssnoogans

(Initiated 1628 days ago on 12 November 2019) - discussion has died down. 19 votes on 12 November, 20 votes on 13 November, 10 votes on 14 November. Just 4 votes from 15 November to 22 November. Total vote count 53. starship .paint (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

{{not done}} per Levivich: 3-month-old report; this is too stale to be closed now; it wouldn't be policy compliant to impose an editing restriction 3 months later; that ship has sailed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Noting for the record that I have closed the discussion as a warning. BD2412 T 05:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#RfC on self-sourcing

(Initiated 1624 days ago on 15 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#RfC on self-sourcing? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}. BD2412 T 05:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314#Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)

(Initiated 1739 days ago on 24 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314#Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)? This is an RfC close review that was archived without closure on 6 October 2019. Like deletion reviews, RfC close reviews should be formally assessed to determine whether the RfC close was correct or incorrect. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

In my view, this is not worth the effort, and should be dropped. It was archived after something like four comments, which doesn't seem enough to overturn a RfC closure even if that were found to be the consensus. Sandstein 07:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not object to archiving this without action based on your analysis, but pinging RfC close review initiator SashiRolls (talk · contribs) in case you would like this to be closed. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

{{not done}}. Cunard (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 163#Proposal to distinguish move and cascade-protect lock colors

(Initiated 1629 days ago on 10 November 2019) I put the above discussion up a while ago and then forgot about it. It doesn't seem there were any opposes (though there was 1 "indifferent"). Could someone please close this, and implement the changes if they agree there is consensus in favor of the proposal? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regen power Pty ltd

(Initiated 1552 days ago on 26 January 2020) Article has been speedy deleted separately as unauthorised re-creation of previously deleted article; concurrent AfD should be closed. Thanks so much. Bookscale (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles

(Initiated 1587 days ago on 22 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{already done}} by Ymblanter (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#MOS:TVIMAGE – explicitly allow (and maybe prefer?) show logos

(Initiated 1650 days ago on 21 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#MOS:TVIMAGE – explicitly allow (and maybe prefer?) show logos? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed with no consensus to implement the proposed change. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WikiProject: prefix

(Initiated 1589 days ago on 21 December 2019) Any uninvolved administrator can close this discussion, which is concerned about the brand new "WikiProject:" prefix. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

{{already done}} by Amorymeltzer * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Kobe Bryant#Requested move 28 January 2020

(Initiated 1551 days ago on 28 January 2020) Could an uninvolved administrator close the controversial and contested requested move at Talk:Death of Kobe Bryant#Requested move 28 January 2020. Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. BD2412 T 02:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for speedy closure of out-of-process move

(Initiated 1548 days ago on 30 January 2020) Please see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Speedy close needed, and previous requests for speedy closure by multiple editors at Talk:Syrian civil war#Requested move 30 January 2020. Immediately re-opening an RM when one simply doesn't like the outcome is against process. (Actual process: ask the closer to instead re-list; take the matter to WP:MRV; and wait several months and re-RM again iff there are new facts and arguments to present; in that order). I'm listing this here because WT:RM doesn't appear to be highly watchlisted; the bogus "anti-RM" could easily run its entire week without being closed. I'm starting to think that a section for speedy closure requests needs to be added to WP:RM/TR, since that actually is closely watched and rapidly acted upon by admins and pagemovers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

{{already done}} by JJMC89 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States#RFC: Should recent presidents be included?

(Initiated 1648 days ago on 23 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States#RFC: Should recent presidents be included?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} -- llywrch (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:University of Delhi#Proposed merge with Delhi University Students' Union

(Initiated 1692 days ago on 8 September 2019) —usernamekiran (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} — Wug·a·po·des 19:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bryan.Wade

(Initiated 1564 days ago on 14 January 2020) Although eligible to close tomorrow, MfD discussions have tended to languish particularly well past the usual 7 day limit in comparison to AfD and RfD. As you'll see from the consensus, there is ample agreement from all involved editors and administrators that the content dispute has been resolved amicably, other than the nominator, who favours deletion. Would an experienced editor (it doesn't have to be an administrator) assess the consensus and action the recommended actions? --Doug Mehus T·C 21:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by Rosguill --DannyS712 (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the second sentence of the last paragraph of the lead be changed?

(Initiated 1573 days ago on 5 January 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please close this discussion? - Mr X 🖋 18:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Mgasparin (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybertruck#Which image should we use?

(Initiated 1599 days ago on 11 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Tesla Cybertruck#Which image should we use?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} BD2412 T 05:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Merge F9 into G12 redux

(Initiated 1636 days ago on 3 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Merge F9 into G12 redux? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: archived without closure to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 75#RfC: Merge F9 into G12 redux --DannyS712 (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

{{not done}} per above. Please revive the discussion to assess the consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 9#RfC: Is information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture, within the scope of this article?

(Initiated 1561 days ago on 17 January 2020) Requesting an experienced editor to assess the consensus at Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 9#RfC: Is information and sources on peoples speaking Germanic languages and following other aspects of Germanic culture, within the scope of this article? The issue at hand is contentious, but the outcome of the RfC appears obvious. That's why I'm requesting closure this early. Thanks. Krakkos (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#RfC on map of infected cases

(Initiated 1554 days ago on 25 January 2020) Requesting an uninvolved experienced editor to assess the consensus at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#RfC on map of infected cases. Issue is contentious but consensus isn't much in doubt. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by feminist. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Varadaraja V. Raman#Content discussions

(Initiated 1694 days ago on 6 September 2019) Any uninvolved admin. Discussion about whether three specific items can be included in the article, one proposed to be newly added, and two which were removed absent discussion after long being in the article. 15:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:AEW Bash at the Beach#Notability / Merge???

(Initiated 1621 days ago on 19 November 2019) Merge discussion with no new feedback in a month, closure from any uninvolved experienced editor would be appreciated.LM2000 (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests/Archive 15#Death toll/ number of death and other numbers in the info box

(Initiated 1573 days ago on 6 January 2020) Would an uninvolved editor to close this "non-Rfc", !vote on the same issue that trying to revert the consensus / "status-quo" formed by previous RfC. Matthew hk (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Fast & Furious_9#Requested move 1 February 2020

(Initiated 1547 days ago on 1 February 2020) Very clear consensus but the article is move-protected, thus this can only be closed by an administrator. feminist (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} closed and filed a technical move request --DannyS712 (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:20th Century Fox#Requested move 17 January 2020

(Initiated 1561 days ago on 17 January 2020) The discussion seems to have stalled for almost 3 weeks now. While a few have suggested a split, the overwhelming majority support moving the page per existing practice and WP:NAMECHANGES which calls for a rename, instead of a split now that the new name has been undeniably adopted by WP:RELIABLESOURCES. The page is currently move-protected so that it can only be moved by Admins. Starforce¹³ 00:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Request withdrawn - it got taken care of. — Starforce¹³ 01:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

{{already done}} by BD2412 --DannyS712 (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Procedural removal of admin rights who have not used the admin tools for a significant period of time (maybe 5 years)

(Initiated 1592 days ago on 18 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Procedural removal of admin rights who have not used the admin tools for a significant period of time (maybe 5 years)? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by TonyBallioni --DannyS712 (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: First mention in the first sentence... (MOS:JOBTITLES)

(Initiated 1631 days ago on 9 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: First mention in the first sentence... (MOS:JOBTITLES)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Time to Die (song)

Several speedy keeps now that this song has been released. Looks like consensus. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

{{already done}} by User:BD2412. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Bruce Pascoe#RfC

(Initiated 1605 days ago on 5 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bruce Pascoe#RfC? There is a request for closure at Talk:Bruce Pascoe#Request for closure. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} -- llywrch (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Clear consensus @ Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

We have 20 supports and 0 opposes for the name change from 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

{{already done}} by Guerillero (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Grayzone

(Initiated 1597 days ago on 12 December 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Grayzone? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Not done}} -- This discussion started up again shortly after the request was made & continues. No clear consensus yet. -- llywrch (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:International Harvester Loadstar#Requested move 5 February 2020

(Initiated 1543 days ago on 5 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Harvester Loadstar? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 05:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Concealed carry in the United States#RfC: Summarize research in the lead

(Initiated 1600 days ago on 10 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Concealed carry in the United States#RfC: Summarize research in the lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} -- llywrch (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Request close on BLP Incident for Philip Cross

(Initiated 1567 days ago on 12 January 2020) Can an uninvolved editor please close the discussion on Philip Cross' BLP editing here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#User:Philip Cross BLP issue

GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}}, no consensus for any action in the discussion, and I don't see anything in the diffs that would justify unilateral action on my part at this time. As the discussion was already archived I'm going to refrain from editing it, but consider this issue closed with no action taken. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#We probably have too many vowel articles

(Initiated 1724 days ago on 8 August 2019) ~~Although I am an uninvolved editor, I cannot be able to assess the consensus of this discussion.~~ Any experienced editor can do that. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 6#RFC: Should the article include Honolulu Civil Beat's investigation of forum postings about Tulsi Gabbard's involvement with the Science of Identity

(Initiated 1572 days ago on 6 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#RFC: Should the article include Honolulu Civil Beat's investigation of forum postings about Tulsi Gabbard's involvement with the Science of Identity Foundation?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: archived without closure to Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 6#RFC: Should the article include Honolulu Civil Beat's investigation of forum postings about Tulsi Gabbard's involvement with the Science of Identity Foundation? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 6#RFC: Workshop for text pertaining to SIF and Gabbard appropriate for her BLP

(Initiated 1571 days ago on 7 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#RFC: Workshop for text pertaining to SIF and Gabbard appropriate for her BLP? Please consider the previous RfC Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 5#RFC on Science of Identity Foundation in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: archived without closure to Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 6#RFC: Workshop for text pertaining to SIF and Gabbard appropriate for her BLP --DannyS712 (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Veracity graphs

(Initiated 1635 days ago on 5 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#Veracity graphs? You are awesome. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Big Tech#Merge FAANG here?

(Initiated 1546 days ago on 1 February 2020) Would a non-involved editor assess the consensus to merge? Currently showing three editors, plus the nominator, in favour of merging. Only one other registered editor and an anonymous editor have stated opposition !votes with, arguably, weaker rationale. Another editor has made generally supportive comments regarding a potential merger.
Note: you do not need to effect or carry out the merge as it has already been listed at the Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers holding cell as awaiting consensus. Doug Mehus T·C 23:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da#CLOSED: Many Lennon & McCartney song entries in Wiki - Writing credits attributed incorrectly - REVISED: 2/3/2020

I was the creator of the discussion, I and everyone involved agree it does not belong on that page. Thank you. WB —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No such page - do you mean Talk:Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da#CLOSED: Many Lennon & McCartney song entries in Wiki - Writing credits attributed incorrectly - REVISED: 2/3/2020? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, I'm going to say yes to that. If you want to modify that heading, I endorse that. Doug Mehus T·C 00:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal/Archive 5#RFC: Ukrainian President's Statement on the Trump-Ukraine Scandal in the Lede

(Initiated 1604 days ago on 5 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal/Archive 5#RFC: Ukrainian President's Statement on the Trump-Ukraine Scandal in the Lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Consensus was to oppose Mr. Zelensky's comments in the lead. I am happy to non-admin close this, but the discussion is in an archive. Is editing an archive permitted? Thanks for any idea. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I responded here. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population#RFC: Numbering

(Initiated 1628 days ago on 11 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population#RFC: Numbering? Thank you! --T*U (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

~~: Doing... -SusanLesch (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)~~ {{not done}}. There are two !votes each way plus a ranked choice vote for both. A participant counted 4 to 1. So I'm sorry but must withdraw. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC) {{Done}} -SusanLesch (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#RfC: Including concerts/tours in articles about Korean musicians

(Initiated 1601 days ago on 9 December 2019) Could an uninvolved and experienced editor please assess the consensus and close the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#RfC: Including concerts/tours in articles about Korean musicians? Thank you. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} -- llywrch (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites#RfC: Should this article include any mention of the Jersey City shooting?

(Initiated 1597 days ago on 12 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites#RfC: Should this article include any mention of the Jersey City shooting?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} -- llywrch (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_February_12#Race_and_intelligence

(Initiated 1536 days ago on 12 February 2020) There's a lot going on with this one and many of the normal DRV closers are unable to close the DRV for one reason or another. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by SilkTork. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79#Requested move 6 January 2020

(Initiated 1572 days ago on 6 January 2020) Relisted twice, most recently back on 31 January – looking for an experienced, uninvolved editor to give these participants closure. Thanks in advance! PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 23:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Saffron terror#Requested move 17 January 2020

(Initiated 1561 days ago on 17 January 2020) We are done here. Discussion should be closed by an uninvolved editor now. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} – PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 19:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is it acceptable to blank userspace sandboxes of long-term/established, but inactive editors?

(Initiated 1557 days ago on 22 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is it acceptable to blank userspace sandboxes of long-term/established, but inactive editors?? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Closing, if any other experienced editor is willing to close it as a team or countersign, ping me. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#Request to prevent "Wikidata" titles from being created

(Initiated 1625 days ago on 14 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#Request to prevent "Wikidata" titles from being created? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Done}} — Wug·a·po·des 02:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:HSC T&T Spirit#Merge suggestion

(Initiated 2032 days ago on 3 October 2018) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus for a merge between USAV Spearhead (TSV-1X) and HSC T&T Spirit, discussed at Talk:HSC T&T Spirit#Merge suggestion. Klbrain (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Mgasparin (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:The Edge Chronicles#Merger of individual articles of books in this series

(Initiated 1978 days ago on 26 November 2018) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus for a merge of individual books into The Edge Chronicles series or its related saga subpages. Klbrain (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Mgasparin (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 7#Tangentially related content (with RfC)

(Initiated 1597 days ago on 13 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 7#Tangentially related content (with RfC)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 5#RfC: Should the untitled Batman (2021) film be listed as part of the DCEU?

(Initiated 1595 days ago on 15 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 5#RfC: Should the untitled Batman (2021) film be listed as part of the DCEU?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Minneapolis#RfC on Athletes pictured at work or in city of origin

(Initiated 1589 days ago on 20 December 2019) Talk:Minneapolis#RfC on Athletes pictured at work or in city of origin Would an univolved editor please close this RfC? It was resolved amicably. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

We have three concurrent Minneapolis RfCs. It would help if an uninvolved editor can also close Talk:Minneapolis#RfC_on_Dakota_Sioux_in_Minneapolis_history and Talk:Minneapolis#RfC_on_appropriate_image_of_Prince. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} for all three RfCs. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Circle network notability discussion

(Initiated 1578 days ago on 31 December 2019) Editors are assuming consensus about notability of Circle network in the split off to an article discussion. It doesn't seem like there are enough involved for a consensus, thus prefer a third party take a look at it. Spshu (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mottainai#RFC on article versions

~~(Initiated 1625 days ago on 14 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mottainai#RFC on article versions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)~~

{{not done}} as an RfC participant contested this closure request on my talk page. I do not want to argue about whether this closure request should have been made. I am marking this as closure request withdrawn, without prejudice against another editor filing another closure request. Courtesy pinging Francis Schonken (talk · contribs), who thanked me for listing this closure request at ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(Initiated 1625 days ago on 14 November 2019) Relisted, interpretation of the outcome appears to be still in dispute, so formal closure would be the best way forward imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis Schonken (talk · contribs). I have commented out the not done template so that the bot does not archive this closure request. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll second the request. I took a break and came back to it, and if anything the matter is mired in more interpersonal drama + sourcing questions now than it was before. It will take an uninvolved party to try to get through to an actual consensus (and it may simply be that consensus did not emerge and that another, more structured discussion is needed as a followup. Or maybe it's just giving me too much of a headache, and someone else will be able to sense a clear consensus buried in it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 11:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} — Wug·a·po·des 22:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture#RfC: Including how work has been received by experts and the public in articles about Korean musicians

(Initiated 1591 days ago on 18 December 2019) Could an uninvolved and experienced editor please assess the consensus and close the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture#RfC: Including how work has been received by experts and the public in articles about Korean musicians? Thank you. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} -SusanLesch (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Chairperson#RFC: What's the best disambiguator for Chair?

(Initiated 1591 days ago on 19 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chairperson#RFC: What's the best disambiguator for Chair?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} — Wug·a·po·des 22:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive 3#RfC: Content by "Paste magazine"

(Initiated 1589 days ago on 21 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive 3#RfC: Content by "Paste magazine"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{not done}} Participants seem to have come to a consensus without closure. The content has been removed and the article is stable. — Wug·a·po·des 22:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Creating a WikiProject

(Initiated 1587 days ago on 22 December 2019) Could an uninvolved experienced editor close this discussion? Interstellarity (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

{{not done}} No need for closure. Participants who want to take it further should see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. — Wug·a·po·des 22:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC

(Initiated 1565 days ago on 14 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} -SusanLesch (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Right-libertarianism/Archive 6#RfC about a libertarian philosophy sometimes referred to as "right-libertarianism"

(Initiated 1559 days ago on 19 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Right-libertarianism/Archive 6#RfC about a libertarian philosophy sometimes referred to as "right-libertarianism"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

{{not done}} Moot. Apparently no consensus; talk page thread was archived; participants have continued discussing and making proposals on the article talk page. Doesn't look like this one needs a formal closure. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Male privilege#RfC about sociological concept vs phenomenon

(Initiated 1559 days ago on 19 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Male privilege#RfC about sociological concept vs phenomenon? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} // Timothy :: talk 19:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Glenn Beck#RfC: Glenn Beck promoted conspiracy theories

(Initiated 1558 days ago on 20 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Glenn Beck#RfC: Glenn Beck promoted conspiracy theories? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Metalheadzone

(Initiated 1571 days ago on 7 January 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Metalheadzone? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 11:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: KenRockwell.com

(Initiated 1561 days ago on 18 January 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: KenRockwell.com? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 11:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Batwoman (TV series)#Request for comment

(Initiated 1543 days ago on 4 February 2020) Nobody has contributed to the discussion in over 19 days and there's been more than enough discussion for someone to end it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ninja (video game player)#Requested move 12 January 2020

(Initiated 1566 days ago on 12 January 2020) This requested move needs an admin to assess consensus or the lack of it. Thanks in advance! PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 04:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Already done}} OhKayeSierra (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles#Request for comment: Do the traditional and simplified forms of Chinese count as the same name or different names in regards to eligibility of displaying characters?

(Initiated 1580 days ago on 29 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles#Request for comment: Do the traditional and simplified forms of Chinese count as the same name or different names in regards to eligibility of displaying characters?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} as NAC Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Labour Party (UK)#Request for comment on lede sentence

(Initiated 1580 days ago on 29 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Labour Party (UK)#Request for comment on lede sentence? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} as NAC Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Interacting with younger editors

(Initiated 1578 days ago on 1 January 2020) Could an uninvolved experienced editor close this discussion? Interstellarity (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

{{not done}} More of a WikiProject discussion than an RfC; now archived; no closure necessary. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Liberty Korea Party#Political position

(Initiated 1578 days ago on 1 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Liberty Korea Party#Political position? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Iran–Contra affair#RfC: Khomeini government

(Initiated 1567 days ago on 11 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iran–Contra affair#RfC: Khomeini government? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Not done}} Near-unanimous consensus after a few days; proposed change was implemented two months ago and is stable. No close needed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Donji Kraji#Version of Article

(Initiated 1604 days ago on 5 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the situation at Talk:Donji_Kraji#Version of Article? Thanks, Ceha --Čeha (razgovor) 12:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donji Kraji#Request for Comments? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed with no consensus to proceed with the proposed alternative version. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sixth Tone

(Initiated 1603 days ago on 6 December 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sixth Tone? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Clear consensus for Additional considerations apply. Not reliable for political information and probably reliable for non-political cultural and social information. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Grayzone

(Initiated 1597 days ago on 12 December 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Grayzone? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed with a clear consensus for either Option 3 or Option 4 and a rough consensus for Option 4. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:White privilege#RFC

(Initiated 1572 days ago on 6 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White privilege#RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White privilege#RFC? Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Khalida Jarrar#Request for outside comments

(Initiated 1587 days ago on 23 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Khalida Jarrar#Request for outside comments? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as no consensus due to lack of participation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?

(Initiated 1583 days ago on 26 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as no consensus achieved on the reliability of Paste. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Gas van#Request for comment

(Initiated 1583 days ago on 26 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gas van#Request for comment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed with a clear consensus against the proposed sources and content. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The New Republic

(Initiated 1578 days ago on 31 December 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The New Republic? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as clear consensus for Option 1 or Option 2 and a rough consensus for Option 1. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Oswestry/Archive 1#RfC about the use of Welsh

(Initiated 1582 days ago on 28 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oswestry/Archive 1#RfC about the use of Welsh? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed with a clear consensus to include the Welsh language name. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship#RFC: Should these aspects of the Henry Neville authorship theory be included in the article

(Initiated 1571 days ago on 7 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship#RFC: Should these aspects of the Henry Neville authorship theory be included in the article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed with a consensus against inclusion of the disputed material. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

WP TV assessment categories

(Initiated 1527 days ago on 21 February 2020) Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_29#Television_task_forces needs closing to enable WikiProject TV assessment categories to be updated. – Fayenatic London 08:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

{{already done}} by Marcocapelle * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_24#Template:No_orbit_for_payload

(Initiated 1541 days ago on 7 February 2020) Any uninvolved editor can either relist or close the discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by Primefac. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Friends#Characters image

(Initiated 1689 days ago on 11 September 2019)

I removed the RFC tag months ago. Recently, the RFC tag was reinserted. The discussion needs a closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@George Ho: It was never publicised by Legobot (talk · contribs) because in both this edit and this one, Bi-on-ic (talk · contribs) added a blank |rfcid= parameter to the {{rfc}} tag. For a new RfC, that parameter must be omitted entirely, or Legobot will simply ignore the whole thing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Moved my request from the RFC section. George Ho (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan Omar#RFC: Should Anti-semitism accusations be included in the lede?

(Initiated 1579 days ago on 30 December 2019) 09:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC on birthplace, nationality, and citizenship parameters with matching values

(Initiated 1576 days ago on 2 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC on birthplace, nationality, and citizenship parameters with matching values? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#RfC about the map in the calendar section

(Initiated 1548 days ago on 30 January 2020) Would an administrator or experienced editor assess the consensus. Thanks.
SSSB (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting#Add names of victims who died

(Initiated 1602 days ago on 8 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting#Add names of victims who died? Thank you! ―Mandruss ☎ 05:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#RfC: Should an infobox be added to the article: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

(Initiated 1574 days ago on 4 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#RfC: Should an infobox be added to the article: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? The consensus is clear but as this is a very contentious topic and discussion, I am not closing the RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed with a clear preponderance of editors against an infobox on this article. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Beyoncé discography#RfC: Should this duo-album be included in this discography?

(Initiated 1620 days ago on 20 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Beyoncé discography#RfC: Should this duo-album be included in this discography?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Mgasparin (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers

(Initiated 1567 days ago on 11 January 2020) Would an uninvolved editor assess the request made at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers, please. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Though involved, I have closed this as moot since the consensus on the core source at issue is established at WP:RSP by reference to multiple discussions. Any unresolved questions about specifics of how to use that source should be raised separately, please, as that would need to be unpicked from the core - and now independently settled - question of reliability. Guy (help!) 11:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy is indeed involved, and therefore the "close" was improper. I also object to the summary that Guy makes here, and suggest reading the thread instead of Guy's summary. The request is still there: would an uninvolved editor look at this please. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#Second section break

(Initiated 1529 days ago on 18 February 2020) There is a straw poll concerning one particularly contentious sentence in the article body. The poll will benefit from an independent closer. Deryck C. 19:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020

(Initiated 1515 days ago on 4 March 2020) This is a move request instantiated by Levivich (talk · contribs) over a week ago. The discussion has a very large number of participants, of a range that would benefit from an independent close. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

{{already done}} by BD2412. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC: Should an SPLC classification as a hate group be automatically leadworthy?

(Initiated 1556 days ago on 22 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC: Should an SPLC classification as a hate group be automatically leadworthy?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} feminist (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:TERF#RfC - Draft paper

(Initiated 1581 days ago on 29 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:TERF#RfC - Draft paper? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} SusanLesch (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ronan Farrow#RfC Ronan’s coming out

(Initiated 1576 days ago on 2 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronan Farrow#RfC Ronan’s coming out? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Quillette#RFC prominent controversies

(Initiated 1568 days ago on 10 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Quillette#RFC prominent controversies? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} SusanLesch (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person#Signature parameter RFC

(Initiated 1558 days ago on 20 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#Signature parameter RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} SusanLesch (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester

(Initiated 1567 days ago on 12 January 2020): Three complicated AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester) have been lingering for some time now, with the first two open (and never relisted) for over a month, and the third with a more complicated history (open 8 January 2020, closed as delete 18 January 2020, overturned to allow a new AfD at DRV on 29 January 2020, the current AfD opened on 29 January 2020, and one relist on 9 February 2020). All three are closely related with lengthy discussions. A careful examination and closure (or relisting) by an uninvolved admin would be duly appreciated. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that Methodist churches was closed by me. This leaves Baptist and Congregational churches needing closure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Do you want to do the Baptist and Congregational churches in Leicester ones, Bearkeep49? I don't think you've participated in those and, since you closed the first one, are familiar with the arguments already. Doug Mehus T·C 20:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, when I began the project I intended to close all three (and even applied a closing tag to all of them). After having read just about everything that applied I decided I would close Methodist churches as there was a qualitatively different discussion, including the DRV, than Congregational/Baptist whose conversations were very close to each other and hopefully will be closed by the same sysop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} by Black Kite at 15:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC); this posted here by — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:WikiLeaks#RfC on OPCW documents related to Douma chemical attack

(Initiated 1573 days ago on 5 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:WikiLeaks#RfC on OPCW documents related to Douma chemical attack? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} Closed with a clear consensus against inclusion of the proposed text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Color Developing Agent 3 and Color Developing Agent 4

(Initiated 1568 days ago on 10 January 2020) I'm requesting that an experienced editor please advise on how to move forward with this merge proposal. Qono (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} Closed as no quorum. Only two clear opinions were expressed and no further comments in the last 60 days. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 8#Customs and Immigration

(Initiated 1541 days ago on 7 February 2020) Somewhat complicated RfD involving multiple options. feminist (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} --BDD (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 165#New approaches to "Simple English Wikipedia"

(Initiated 1584 days ago on 25 December 2019) ~~Pretty old discussion and needs to be closed.~~ --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: That's not an RFC, and it would be almost impossible to determine "consensus" from a grab-bag of editors saying either "This seems like a good idea, but I don't know how to go about accomplishing/implementing it" or "This seems like a bad idea, and here's why", unless the consensus would simply be "No consensus Default to status quo." Moreover, closing threads after they've already been archived is rarely done. Unarchiving would be the way to go about it if it had been archived recently, but more than 30 newer threads have already been archived. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you I am removing the request. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

{{not done}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle#RfC on 24 January 2020

(Initiated 1554 days ago on 24 January 2020) Any uninvolved editor can assess the consensus of this RfC. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Thank you! Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#RfC: Proposal to add macrons to New Zealand naming conventions

(Initiated 1554 days ago on 24 January 2020) Would an uninvolved sysop (or otherwise experienced editor) please assess the consensus? We've had a good discussion, with many good suggestions having been worked into the proposed naming convention change. I think this is now stable; everybody who is interested in the topic appears to have had their say. As the topic has a huge history going back to 2007 and there's been a lot of controversy about it in the past, there's a bit of reading to do; it's not a short RfC. Note that the media has been watching this; three outlets have reported about the RfC (and the Wikipedia discussion on the topic has received media attention before). Thanks in advance. Schwede 66 01:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ross Finlayson (User:Rsfinlayson), a major contributor to related discussions such as at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 25#Appeal to revert the revert that changed Paekākāriki back to Paekakariki, and/or to clarify rules around Māori place names, last edited Wikipedia a few days before the RfC started. Maybe he is on holiday or something. He may have opposed the RfC. His views can be seen in the discussion I have just linked. This may not make much difference to the support/oppose vote numbers, but I think worth mentioning. Nurg (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Thank you! Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Bernie Sanders#RfC: "news coverage" section

(Initiated 1550 days ago on 28 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bernie Sanders#RfC: "news coverage" section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Thank you! Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Peppermint (drag queen)#Request for comment on whether to include Peppermint's birth name

(Initiated 1529 days ago on 19 February 2020) RfC has been open for more than 30 days, and participation has waned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Thank you! Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ice Road Truckers episodes

(Initiated 1520 days ago on 28 February 2020) Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ice Road Truckers episodes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by Xinbenlv. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:The Boxmasters/GA2

(Initiated 1654 days ago on 16 October 2019) GAR that was originally closed as "Delist" until I realized that the article had been compromised by COI accounts. Consensus is that the article is fine to keep as a GA for now. As this discussion was started all the way back in October I'd like it closed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#NPOV issue: "Local residents"

(Initiated 1540 days ago on 8 February 2020) Could an experienced uninvolved editor please review Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#NPOV issue: "Local residents"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by Ncmvocalist. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Eli Cohen#RfC

(Initiated 1612 days ago on 28 November 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eli Cohen#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} — Newslinger talk 05:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mobile launcher platform#Merger proposal 27 January 2020

(Initiated 1551 days ago on 27 January 2020) Please close the discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} MrClog (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Penis (disambiguation)#Merger proposal

(Initiated 1536 days ago on 11 February 2020) Any time after this merger proposal has been outstanding, would a non-involved editor assess the consensus and close the merger discussion? If no opposition, close as no objection after a period of time. Thanks.
Note: you do not need to effect or carry out the merge as it has already been listed at the Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers holding cell as awaiting consensus. --Doug Mehus T·C 00:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} — Newslinger talk 07:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1032#User:Soumya-8974_and_redirects

(Initiated 1500 days ago on 19 March 2020) Please close the discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment – I found the outcome on my talk page. --Soumyabrata ^{wash your hands} _{to protect from coronavirus} 12:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
{{done}} (for bot)). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Next Italian general election#Parties in infobox, redux

(Initiated 1567 days ago on 11 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Next Italian general election#Parties in infobox, redux? Please consider in your close Talk:Next Italian general election#Results of RfC, where there is disagreement about the consensus. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} llywrch (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome#RfC on inclusion of lead image

(Initiated 1557 days ago on 21 January 2020) Could an uninvolved admin please assess consensus and close the RfC on this page? There hasn't been active discussion in some time, and it has run for a month. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}}—S Marshall T/C 17:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ian Smith#RfC: Regarding the introduction

(Initiated 1544 days ago on 3 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ian Smith#RfC: Regarding the introduction? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}—S Marshall T/C 23:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Qasem Soleimani#RfC about inclusion of Iranian propaganda section

(Initiated 1555 days ago on 23 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Qasem Soleimani#RfC about inclusion of Iranian propaganda section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}—S Marshall T/C 01:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party (United States)#RfC: Racial and geographical realignment after the Civil Rights Act

(Initiated 1546 days ago on 1 February 2020) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#RfC: Racial and geographical realignment after the Civil Rights Act? Thanks, Sdkb (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}—S Marshall T/C 14:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Red Ash (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 January 2020

(Initiated 1567 days ago on 11 January 2020) This discussion has been relisted twice: 28 January 2020 and 5 March 2020. There were no new comments after either relist. Could an experienced closer please close this? (I'm not sure if I will, but I'm posting this here in case I don't.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by JHunterJ. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 16:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Proposal: Move moratorium

(Initiated 1503 days ago on 15 March 2020) A very high profile article that has been subject to multiple requested moves and the question of whether there should be a pause or not needs resolving soon. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}—S Marshall T/C 14:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Category:Basic income advocates and Category:Basic income proponents

(Initiated 1495 days ago on 23 March 2020) Can someone please close the discussion? Helper201 (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Not done}} Wait at least seven days for the discussion to run its course. Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Current interpretations of WP:NCORP fail to adequately evaluate Art Galleries

(Initiated 1835 days ago on 18 April 2019) Would an experienced admin please summarize and officially close this discussion on how notability for organizations and companies should be applied to art galleries? Thank you! Qono (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Qono: the consensus in this discussion is obvious and official closure is unnecessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: The consensus was not clear to me and I think that this long, varied discussion would benefit from a closing summary. Qono (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Qono, I would second Marcocapelle's opinion. While in a perfect world it would be nice to have a summary of all of the various arguments raised in the discussion, ultimately the concrete proposals were all resoundingly shot down, and I don't know that it's the best use of our limited volunteer resources to ask someone to summarize the discussion at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above, that an official closure of this rather convoluted discussion is unnecessary. BD2412 T 01:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle, Rosguill, and BD2412: Fair enough. For what it's worth, I asked for this close because this discussion came up during a recent AfD. I thought it would be useful to have an official summary to help guide future discussions about galleries with questionable notability, but I accept that I am outnumbered here. Qono (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Official Close - I support an official closure of this long discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

~~Doing...~~ Alsee (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} Alsee (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of the oldest living people#RfC: List world's oldest 50 people or 100?

(Initiated 1544 days ago on 3 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of the oldest living people#RfC: List world's oldest 50 people or 100?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of American films of 2019#RfC: Genre columns

(Initiated 1545 days ago on 3 February 2020) May an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:List of American films of 2019#RfC: Genre columns and close it accordingly? There has been little activity in the discussion for some time now. —Matthew - (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}—S Marshall T/C 13:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Use of Large Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template

(Initiated 1581 days ago on 29 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Use of Large Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

NB: the discussion has now been archived to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 219#RfC: Use of Large Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I've unarchived the RfC. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} and section pin removed. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth II#Request for Comment: Use of Windsor as last name?

(Initiated 1540 days ago on 7 February 2020) RFC open at Talk:Elizabeth II#Request for Comment: Use of Windsor as last name? since 7 February, discussion has had little comment since early March. Could someone close it please? Kahastok talk 08:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}—S Marshall T/C 13:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Dubai Marina#Proposed merge of Dubai Marina Mall into Dubai Marina

(Initiated 1603 days ago on 6 December 2019) Could an uninvolved editor or administrator close this discussion? Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} — JFG ^talk 17:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting#Add names of victims who died

(Initiated 1601 days ago on 8 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting#Add names of victims who died? Thank you! ―Mandruss ☎ 05:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Didn't get contacted by anyone, so I'm assuming it's been accepted and marking this done. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:The Lord of the Rings#Proposed merge of The Fellowship of the Ring etc into The Lord of the Rings

(Initiated 1543 days ago on 4 February 2020) Need closure for this discussion. Lightburst (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by someone else on 18 March. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source?

(Initiated 1535 days ago on 13 February 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source?? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 03:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firejuggler86 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Julian Assange#RfC about German appeal

(Initiated 1535 days ago on 12 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian Assange#RfC about German appeal? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}—S Marshall T/C 17:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 March 18#Southern Pacific 9010

This DRV is 8 days overdue to be closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Doing... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated bogus OR accusations

(Initiated 1510 days ago on 9 March 2020) Please, for the love of all that is good, just make it end already. 106.130.209.70 (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It has now been closed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by User:Black Kite per this edit on 4 April. EdJohnston (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to streamline the welcome template

(Initiated 1537 days ago on 11 February 2020) I would appreciate if an experienced editor could please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to streamline the welcome template. Thanks, Sdkb (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#What should be the venue for discussing Rcat templates?

(Initiated 1554 days ago on 24 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#What should be the venue for discussing Rcat templates?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}—S Marshall T/C 12:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#White privilege

(Initiated 1609 days ago on 30 November 2019) Please review, asses and close this discussion on the NPOV noticeboard Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#White privilege.Keith Johnston (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: Now archived at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 80#White_privilege. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Not done}} per above. Please revive the discussion for closure. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 13:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:History of English#Requested move 7 March 2020

(Initiated 1511 days ago on 7 March 2020) Please close the discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} by User:Interstellarity. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 13:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 in the United Kingdom#RfC on what name to give to the incumbent parliament

(Initiated 1567 days ago on 12 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2020 in the United Kingdom#RfC on what name to give to the incumbent parliament? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} - Ryk72 ^talk 03:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about the description of People's Mujahedin of Iran as cult in the lead

(Initiated 1539 days ago on 8 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about the description of People's Mujahedin of Iran as cult in the lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The closure would better be carried out by an admin please. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Done by Vanamonde93.—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} for the bot. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RFC 2

(Initiated 1528 days ago on 19 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RFC 2? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Also done by Vanamonde93.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} for the bot. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette#RfC: Article readability

(Initiated 1524 days ago on 23 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette#RfC: Article readability? Thanks,—S Marshall T/C 23:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yameen

(Initiated 1504 days ago on 15 March 2020) Please relist or review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yameen. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by Callanecc. The AfD was relisted on 4 April 2020. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Deletion request: Hungarian Spectrum

(Initiated 1487 days ago on 1 April 2020) Wrong venue, article AfD'd. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: Why have you brought this here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

{{not done}} -- Somebody thought that our article on Hungarian Spectrum should be deleted due to "self promotion, soap boxing, political activism". They complained about this at WP:AN#Deletion request: Hungarian Spectrum. At that point someone pointed them to the AfD process, so now we have an open discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungarian Spectrum. There is no remaining issue to be settled at WP:AN/RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You're both rifght, I should have waited for the AfD to finish. One user presented new evidence that the initiator, a Hungarian IP, is acting in fear of censorship, so we shoudl discuss that instead. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:RMS Queen Mary 2#Requested move 12 March 2020

(Initiated 1506 days ago on 12 March 2020) Requested move has been open for three weeks now, and nothing has been added to the discussion in the last 10 days. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 02:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–present)#Requested move 19 January 2020

(Initiated 1560 days ago on 19 January 2020) RM thas has been stale for a month. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 18:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by wbm1058 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC) – P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 02:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Penrose tiling/1

(Initiated 1559 days ago on 19 January 2020) This seems to have run its course (one new participant in two months). XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} – The result was Keep Listed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Requested move 15 March 2020

(Initiated 1503 days ago on 15 March 2020) Please relist the discussion. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 13:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC) – P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 02:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Diocese of Helsinki#Requested move 16 February 2020

(Initiated 1531 days ago on 16 February 2020) RM thas has been stale for a month. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 18:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by BD2412 T 14:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC) – P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 02:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Hester Thrale#Requested move 22 March 2020

(Initiated 1496 days ago on 22 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hester Thrale#Requested move 22 March 2020? Thanks, 215lax (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@215lax: At Talk:Hester Thrale, there is no section named "RfC about change to Hester Piozzi"; nor can I find any evidence that an RfC has ever been held on that page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly he means Talk:Hester Thrale#Requested move 22 March 2020 about moving to the title "Hester Piozzi". Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Then it refers to an ongoing WP:RM, and not to a WP:RFC at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This entry fixed – now links to requested move. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 15:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

and {{done}}. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 16:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: New Village Pump Page

(Initiated 1549 days ago on 29 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: New Village Pump Page? Assuming a positive result, you can just ping me in the closure or in the edit summary and I can implement the result. Thanks, Alsee (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: archived without consensus at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_166#Proposal:_New_Village_Pump_Page. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Note: I brought it back out of the archive. Alsee (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Robot is a robot. It will archive the discussion again. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Alsee, I have closed the discussion as a clear consensus to proceed. Good luck with it! SilkTork (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding {{close}} for the robot :). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yameen

(Initiated 1503 days ago on 15 March 2020) Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yameen. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

{{already done}} by Sandstein (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left Front (India)

(Initiated 1494 days ago on 24 March 2020) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left Front (India) could benefit from an administrator with an understanding of Indian politics and so I list it here as an uninvolved sysop who could myself theoretically close this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

{{already done}} by Sandstein (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Operation Victory#Requested move 21 March 2020

(Initiated 1497 days ago on 21 March 2020) Please could an impartial admin deliver consensus to this discussion. SmartyPants22 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by Number 5 7 13:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC) – P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 08:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article?

(Initiated 1488 days ago on 30 March 2020) Please initiate a team close of uninvolved administrators. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This has been taken care of at WP:AN, Two administrators have volunteered to close. CBS527^Talk 00:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Mz7 (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum#RfC

(Initiated 1496 days ago on 23 March 2020) To end a current editing dispute, a formal close would be much appreciated. --MrClog (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. There is consensus to use the phrase 'on a balance of probabilities' when referring to the fact finding judgment of the civil court. See the RfC closure here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive319#Termination of IBAN

(Initiated 1506 days ago on 13 March 2020) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive319#Termination of IBAN? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by SilkTork (talk · contribs). Thank you! Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?

(Initiated 1541 days ago on 6 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by ToThAc (talk · contribs). Thank you! Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ronald Reagan#RfC

(Initiated 1512 days ago on 6 March 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Ronald Reagan#RfC? As it is a two-part question, special care should be taken to abide by WP:NOTVOTE. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by King of Hearts (talk · contribs). Thank you! Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Sustainable business#Proposed merge with Sustainable dentistry

(Initiated 1921 days ago on 22 January 2019): Would any uninvolved editor assess the consensus for a merge from Sustainable dentistry to Sustainable business, with a discussion at Talk:Sustainable business#Proposed merge with Sustainable dentistry. Klbrain (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Grand Mufti of India#Merge pages

(Initiated 1518 days ago on 29 February 2020): Poorly raised with various technical issues including merge templates not pointing to discussion section and seems only supported by proposer who may have a negative bias against the subject. Limited discussion but against merge. I do not wish to close as involved and under discretionary sanctions IPA area. Please close. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

{{done}}. Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC on race and intelligence

(Initiated 1502 days ago on 16 March 2020)

It is requested that an uninvolved administrator, or perhaps a team of administrators, assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC on race and intelligence. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended discussion of the above Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads The consensus was a three admin close and also what SilkTork suggested.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The outcome of the current discussion at RSN is highly relevant to outcome of this RFC, because the source being discussed there is the source that most directly addresses the question that the RFC is raising. At this stage, I suggest allowing the RSN discussion to conclude before closing the FTN discussion. Ideally, both discussions should be closed by the same team of admins, to ensure that the conclusions of the two discussions are consistent with one another. 2600:1004:B12C:16E5:BDFF:3E49:E5B:E995 (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. There was never a consensus about a closing panel being necessary, and the RSN thread doesn't have to be closed first (it's just forum shopping). This RFC shouldn't be NAC'd but otherwise it's a normal RFC like any other, and should be closed like any other. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's going to be difficult to find the right closer let alone multiple right closers. Having someone who can put together a close that will be respected, even if not agreed with, by all participants is important given the contentiousness of the issue (and our general collectively brittle state as we all isolate to varying degrees or otherwise deal with the effects of the pandemic). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 some admins will be off work or working reduced hours because of the pandemic and thus have more time on their hands. Those who are still working will have no time for recreational activities in their time off work and will be stuck at home and thus will also have more time on their hands. So really it is more likely you will be able to assemble a three person admin close because of the lockdown, in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 you were part of a three person close and it caused zero drama, no one disputed it. When a one admin tried to close it before that there was a split community with enormous drama and endless debates. I don’t see why the same cannot be done again, really there is no other option.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I think a well reasoned close will normally stick. I agreed that AfD would have benefited from a panel close and still think that was the right decision for a number of factors that were present there. That AfD had many more participants for instance than this RfC. I don't think it's healthy for the project, including in this dispute area, for that to be the requirement for every major discussion going forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, there are editors on both sides who are either deeply emotional or even unhinged at times with this topic area, a few of whom really should be topic banned but won’t be because diffs can not demonstrate the just about civil but highly disruptive WP:BLUDGEONing of the topic area. ArbCom and AN/I don’t do anything about this type of disruptive behaviour. They dispute every microscopic detail and every word, don’t give an inch, don’t care about policies and guidelines for sources, just their POV and they are very obsessive. In fairness to me, you have not read this RfC so I do feel for that reason your opinion is in error.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Literaturegeek, I did read the RfC for its first two weeks and it is possible that it has changed radically in nature since then. However, even if it has, I re-iterate that I think having every major discussion in any given contentious area need to be closed by a panel would be a bad practice for the encyclopedia. If we had an abundance of editors I'd think differently but since we have backlogs in numerous places and single closer has worked at numerous areas full of similar issues to R+I I don't see why this RfC needs a panel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 I am of course talking about this article, wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination) in my above comment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

An IP editor has been canvassing specific admins with non-neutral requests for input or closure. Transparency from any admins who have been solicited this way would be appreciated. –dlthewave ☎ 16:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Dlthewave, I'm guessing you're talking about me. I would not characterize that the message that the IP left me as a non-neutral request for closure. I understand why someone might characterize their request to Silk Tork as non-neutral but effectively you're saying that a person who'd you otherwise would trust to be a closer suddenly because of one comment is no longer someone you would trust. That's too bad because I think Silk Tork, and perhaps others I'm not aware of, would have been a superb closer for this issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, this is why I have my panties in a bunch about this. If you ask an admin to close and they say yes, then people will object because the admin was canvassed. (Doesn't matter who the admin is.) If you ask an admin to close, and they say no because they don't want to be canvassed, then we've knocked a potential closer out of the pool. And that's just as big of a problem! My ABF interpretation (and I admit it's ABF) is that the IP is trying to knock admin out of the pool of potential closers by asking them to close, knowing full well others will object and the admin will demur, as happened with SilkTork.

The IP has, on multiple occasions, expressed the need to have a "blue ribbon panel" of admins, specifically selected to be "free of bias". They've explicitly said that we can't just have any "random" admin close this, because of purported bias concerns. This has a chilling effect. As you said, it's going to be really hard to find a closer.

Additionally, is there anything that makes this RFC more important than any of the other RFCs waiting for closure? Why should one RFC take up so many admin's time with this select-a-closer nonsense, all coming from one IP?

This is on top of an RSN being opened at the tail end of the RFC and purporting to affect the outcome of the RFC. This was done by a "no" advocate in the RFC, and now the IP is canvassing admin to close both, which I see as trying to "force" a close on a half-baked RSN thread (wherein there is obviously no consensus in that thread, because the question was malformed, and it's just yet another forum for the same "yes" and "no" !voters [myself included] to argue the same issues as in the RFC).

Do you agree with this: the participants in a discussion do not select the closer of that discussion. It's antithetical to the principle of having an "uninvolved" closer. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the canvassing message is neutrally-worded or not; it's inappropriate to ask a specific admin to close a specific thread. (In the same way that it's inappropriate to ask a specific admin to sanction a specific editor.) We have noticeboards specifically for these purposes.

I think either SilkTork or you would make great choices for closers, individually or as part of a panel. And I also think there are literally hundreds of other admin who would also make a great choice. Having an editor push this hard to recruit hand-selected admin to close is inappropriate (even if I agree with the particular selections), and more importantly, really harmful, because it chases potential closers away, while also sucking up limited resources that are needed elsewhere. And a dynamic IP on top of it, so we can't even be sure how many admin were solicited or who they were. Ugh, I categorize this as civil-POV-pushing-gaming-of-consensus. Sure, they're being polite and that's great, but what they're doing is breaking our system for making decisions. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, you do not seriously expect the discussion here to produce an admin willing to close, do you? Do you really think that, at this stage, any admin who hasn't been directly asked is going to voluntarily subject themselves to the inevitable drama that will result? At this stage there are two choices:

1: The discussion(s) can be closed by Barkeep49, or some other admin (or group of admins) who have been directly asked, and who therefore have a reason to subject themselves to this difficulty.

2: The discussion(s) can remain open indefinitely, possibly for months, until they're eventually moved into the noticeboard archives without a formal closure, and then the same dispute continues on the article's talk page where it had been before.

I want to avoid option "2". This dispute has been churning for the past four months, and I don't want it to continue for another four months. Somehow it will need to be resolved, and there are a limited number of ways that's possible, especially now that my request for dispute resolution has been rejected. The only other option anyone has proposed for how to resolve it is opening an ArbCom case. If someone would rather do that instead, that would be fine with me also. 2600:1004:B14C:5FEB:A5C7:A31D:F041:4AE2 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Gosh, I could not disagree with you more. Literally, I think the opposite of what you wrote, on every single point.

1. This RFC should not be closed right now at all, because new editors are still joining the discussion almost daily. We had new !votes come in today (Apr 9), and Apr 8, Apr 7, Apr 5, Apr 1, Mar 31, etc. This discussion isn't done yet.

2. Yes, I think that by listing the discussion here, it will be closed. Eventually. There are a lot of RFCs listed here, some much older than this one. I don't think this is the most-pressing RFC on this board right now, but eventually, someone will close it.

3. Asking an admin doesn't give them "a reason to subject themselves to this difficulty". I'm not sure how many times I can say that, at least in my firmly-held opinion, asking a specific admin to close a specific discussion is inappropriate. Giving an admin "a reason" is inappropriate. They're volunteers. They shouldn't feel obligated, they shouldn't be put into an awkward position, they shouldn't be subjected to canvassing. If an admin was going to close an RFC anyway, and then is asked to close it, it will appear that they are only closing it because they were asked, which is unfair to the admin and impinges on the perception of their impartiality. If an admin was going to close another RFC and is asked to close this one, they may feel obligated to close this one instead of the other one. That robs the other RFC of a closer, which isn't fair to those participants. It also "tells" the admin where to volunteer their time, which isn't fair to the admin. If an admin was going to close an RFC anyway, and is asked to close it, and declines to close it so as to avoid the appearance of canvassing, that robs the RFC of a closer. That's also unfair, to the participants and to the admin. An admin who wasn't going to close anything may feel obligated upon being asked, or may be put in the uncomfortable position of either having to say "no" or having to close an RFC they didn't want to close. That's unfair to the admin and unfair to participants if it results in a closer who really isn't "into it". No matter how you cut it, asking a specific admin to close a specific discussion results in unfairness to the admin and to other editors.

4. I find it extremely offensive to suggest that some admin are qualified to close this RFC but others are not. The only admin who aren't qualified to close this RFC are the ones who !voted in it. All other admin have been vetted by the community. Any uninvolved admin is qualified to close any RFC, with very few exceptions.

5. This dispute churns because you're churning it. As are other "no" !voters. There is now: (a) the RFC, (b) an RSN, (c) this ANRFC, (d) discussion on at least three admin's talk pages, and (e) I don't know where else because I can't figure out how to check the contribs of a dynamic IP.

6. There are not two options here; there is only one, which is that all participants in the RFC stop trying to engineer a close of the RFC, and we let the natural consensus process unfold. Volunteers will volunteer, maybe alone, maybe in a group, to close this RFC when the time is right. All we participants have to do is shut up and wait patiently. WP:NORUSH, WP:VOLUNTEER, etc. Oh and since there is this whole pandemic thing going on, maybe we even give everyone a little more time than usual, eh? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
It's very ironic of you to accuse me of churning the dispute, considering you're the person who attempted to rename the article to "race and intelligence myth". I'm not the person who's been blanking sections of the article, trying to delete it, trying to rename it, or trying to classify it as "fringe" (which is an obvious prelude to more removals of content, if the RFC is decided in NightHeron's favor). The reason I became involved in that article is because I oppose what the rest of you are trying to do.

You have an extremely unrealistic understanding of this situation. This isn't a normal RFC, and never really was, as it's very unusual for the person who started the RFC to so completely dominate it in an effort to ensure their point of view wins. At this stage, whichever admin closes the discussion will be required to read around 40,000 words of text, along with the secondary discussions here and at RSN. The amount of time and effort required will continue to increase as the discussion grows longer and longer. I've been told by multiple admins that it's common for RFCs to never receive a formal closure, and that outcome is looking increasingly likely for this one. After 23 days, the vote in the RFC is split with 25 votes in each direction, so it's unlikely that continuing to accumulate more votes will have much effect besides making the closing admin's task even more difficult.

One outcome that I do is acknowledge as possible is that the RFC will eventually be given a zero-effort close by an admin who did not read the entire discussion, like Spartaz's initial "delete" close in the AFD. But I think most people do not want that outcome, and I would hope you don't want it either. 2600:1004:B14C:5FEB:A5C7:A31D:F041:4AE2 (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, a lot of our systems break if you decide to assume bad faith. Civil-POV pushing is a behavior violation; if you have the diffs to back it up the right thing to do is not say it here (this is not a conduct forum) but go to WP:AE and file a proper report. Otherwise I will continue to assume that the IP is an editor in good standing and respond accordingly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, that's true. I'll spare you the link to the suicide pact essay :-) I think you may be right about a noticeboard but I'm loathe to escalate this further. This is already out of control here for ANFRC–apologies to Rose, Cunard and the other regulars for the walls of text. (I would hat it but I'm afraid I'd break the page.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

One of the problems with canvassing is that when good-faith editors are canvassed, their participation in the discussion is immediately suspect through no fault of their own. It's highly inappropriate for a single-purpose account to ask admins of their choosing to provide input or orchestrate a close, and it's also not great for admins to enable this behavior by showing up to the discussion as requested. I agree that this should be further addressed at AE or ANI.

I also have no concerns about a "random admin" botching the close. All of our admins were chosen for their competence and they generally have good self-awareness of which tasks are within their wheelhouse. If an editor is concerned about finding a closer, they should post a notice here. That's what ANRFC is for. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
A single admin closing this will automatically have their decision challenged, accused of biased or more likely attacked on such a divisive article. Only a three person admin close will be accepted. Just look at the drama here where no one agrees, never mind the RfC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Literaturegeek, I agree that a three person team would be best. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment ~~This is a diff to SilkTork’s suggested three person close.~~ Just look at this discussion where editors on both sides are facing the reality that a three person close is the only way out of this:wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Discussion_of_appropriateness_of_proposed/solicited_closing_of_this_RfC you can clearly see the amount of drama and accusations going back and forth just in trying to get a close done. I think everyone wants a close that means they can accept it and move on. Three trusted admins will correct each other on any potential bias resulting in a close that will have to be accepted by both sides no matter which side gets butt hurt. I have actually left the RfC because it is far too toxic with insults and insinuations. A one admin close will certainly not be accepted because the RfC voting numbers and arguments are emotionally intense, split down the middle and deeply polarised and will inevitably result in instant drama with accusations of bias.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think SilkTork is suggesting a three person close. I think SilkTork is explaining how such a request could be made. I've commented on the rest of this above so I won't repeat myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually, rereading his comment, and the context of it, your interpretation may actually be more accurate. I don’t like to misrepresent people. SilkTork, on further thought, was neutral on the idea as I recall he was bowing out at that point, I forgot the context. I read too much into it, have struck above. Thanks for your feedback Barkeep49.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I am requesting again that this discussion be assessed and closed. I think any uninvolved administrator or set of administrators will suffice. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
In my post here I predicted that no admin who wasn't directly asked would volunteer to close this RFC. RFCs are typically closed after 30 days, so I think my prediction is being borne out.

@Barkeep49: You've said you don't want to close the RFC yourself and I won't pressure you to change your mind about that, but is there anything you can do to help ensure this RFC is closed properly? Literaturegeek, Insertcleverphrasehere, Bpesta22 and I all have expressed the view that it should be closed by a team of three admins like the AFD was, so that type of closure would be best. 2600:1004:B161:F80D:B9BC:F15E:F101:6CC1 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

2600:1004, as I've expressed to you I am opposed to a team close on this RfC. I am opposed because I do not believe this conflict area is going away, we have only so many qualified closers, we only have so much capacity and I argue we don't even have enough capacity for our existing processes, which includes even controversial RfCs being closed by a single closer. Beyond that I also have my own difficulty at getting a panel of closers for a recent RFC (WP:MEDMOS2020) where a lot of begging on a highly visible board eventually yielded two closers. So even if I did believe in a team close I would not have any brilliant ideas about how to find such sysops. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I see. @SilkTork: do you have any ideas? As in Barkeep49's case, I accept that you do not wish to close the RFC yourself, so I'm just asking for some more general help or guidance with respect to obtaining a proper closure. 2600:1004:B161:F80D:B9BC:F15E:F101:6CC1 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

2600:: please try to be patient. There are 34 other RfCs ahead of this one, most of which were opened 40-60 days ago, and volunteers who patrol here typically work their way down from the top. It's unlikely that we'll get bumped to the front of the queue since there's no special urgency to this discussion. When it's our turn, a competent admin will come along and close it, or a group close will be organized in the unlikely event that it's considered necessary. –dlthewave ☎ 14:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, have you considered that the very recent last AfD for this article/topic area attracted what some viewed as a WP:SUPERVOTE by a closing admin requiring a community deletion review? And that another admin (who several editors raised concerns in their later RfB that they had a history of doing supervotes on other closes as well and caused their RfB to be rejected) posted a proposed close they were intending to do, but were beaten to it, that was opposite to the three person close? That led to a significant drain on community time with a long deletion review before a team close was recommended which overturned the original close. I guess many of us, on both sides of the debate, would like a close that is free from allegations of a supervote so we can accept it and move on. Few of us want to go through the whole community review and drama again on an RfC review discussion. MEDMOS is nowhere near as controversial as race and intelligence. I guess a one admin close that sticks strictly to policy and is done to a high quality could be accepted, but the concern of a supervote (or false allegation of supervote) is there given the controversial nature of this topic, thus perpetuating rather than resolving the drama in this topic area.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Have I considered that a panel close was necessary for that AfD? Yes. Did I think the panel was right then? Yes. Do I think it was right in retrospect? Yes. And yet I still don't think a panel is necessary here. I respect that you think differently and am not going to try and convince you otherwise. Nor should you feel the need to convince me - I am not going to be closing that RfC whether individually or on a panel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Barkeep49 for taking the time to read and reply. You have now heard all my points of view, thank you for considering them, I have nothing further to add. I will not disturb your editing experience with this any further.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I hope this gets closed soon. It has turned into a text wall on top of a text wall, largely due to WP:BLUDGEON in true excess by a couple of parties on one side, followed by specific "closing candidate" canvassing of particular admins by an anon on the other side. I think it would be especially helpful for a) the three-uninvolved-admins panel to form now and start working on it; b) refactor with {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} every single bludgeon post (i.e., every comment and block of comments following any of the actual !votes), because the page is so think with e-yelling that it discourages further new input; and c) announce that the three-admin review has started and that the RfC will be formally closed to new comments at X date and time (UTC). Don't take any guff from people wanting to "vote you off" the panel; F that noise. Everyone in that discussion has a viewpoint, and everyone coming to it is going to have one; the whole point of a panel is to mitigate bias, and it's not likely that any participant in that debate with be perfectly happy with every single admin who volunteers to wade through that mess. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

My top priority is to finish my Arbcom submission but following that I would be willing, as an uninvolved administrator, to clerk that discussion by collapsing some of the extended discussion which is cluttering the noticeboard. Alternatively, and this might be better, the RfC could be moved, at this point, to its own page with a pointer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I think your second suggestion, to move the RFC to its own page, is the better one. I don't agree with the proposal to collapse all the non-vote comments. While some of these comments are mere bludgeoning, there are others that make important points, such as the posts pointing out how some of the cited sources say do not say what they're claimed to say, or comments explaining how "race" and "intelligence" are defined in the research this RFC is about. In my opinion we should not discourage subsequent voters from reading those comments. I also think it's almost impossible for any person to be a truly objective judge of what comments are bludgeoning, and what comments make important points, and any decision about which discussions to collapse would inevitable give everyone yet another thing to argue about. 2600:1004:B127:D823:71A5:A349:3F5C:2EA7 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, some sources were significantly misrepresented and closing/hatting comments could bias the outcome of the RfC by suppressing certain replies. In any event, the conversations below comments have all come to an end. The ongoing comments are in the subsections below the RfC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by TonyBallioni. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 March#Ice age (disambiguation)

(Initiated 1517 days ago on 1 March 2020) – Please close this MRV. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 08:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ at 08:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 17:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 March#Pink_Season_(Pink_Guy_album)

(Initiated 1509 days ago on 9 March 2020) – Please close this MRV. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 08:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ at 08:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 17:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)