User:Eggishorn/RfC log/Archive 1

Talk:Operation Castor
There has been edit-warring on the article over the overwhelming consensus in the RfC, and the edit-warrior's latest edit summary is "you must follow process, RFC requires formal closure, any change can only be made based on the RFC result". Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please help closing this RfC, as it has expired now. Some participants have required an official closure. Dino nam (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Resolved Closed with consensus to delete victory/defeat descriptor (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mia Khalifa#Clear Censorship of Her Christian Identity
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Mia Khalifa ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Resolved Closed with consensus to Oppose inclusion (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Templating, so that the archive bot does its deed. Tigraan Click here to contact me 19:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas MacArthur#Infobox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Douglas MacArthur ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done Closed with consensus for second alternative (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Karl Wolff
The talk page conversation has gotten way off topic and out of control with one or two editors keeping this alive with repeated posts about the merits of having award lists on Wikipedia. I tried to archive this myself, before understanding the specific rules about Requests for Closures, and it was immediately un-archived with more off topic posts about how Wikipedia should not have certain award lists. The talk page conversation has strayed away from the subject of the article and a lot of users have given up with the same people who are going around and around with the same posts. Can an uninvolved individual close and archive this. I would also recommend watching it for a short time afterwards as there is a high chance one of the original editors may try to unarchive it and keep the debate alive. -O.R.Comms 14:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done Closed as moot after awards moved to separate article. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Which is the better statement?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Natalie Portman ? Please consider the closed RfCs Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4 and Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done Consensus against using term "major" without support. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Goa Opinion Poll
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Goa Opinion Poll ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Consensus against new name has remained unchanged for three weeks. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Television content rating systems#RfC: Should we add a new category in the comparison table?
resolved Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Television content rating systems ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This RfC was closed (non-admin closure) on 17 December 2016 by SlitherioFan2016 Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:People of Jewish descent ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Clinton Foundation#RFC: Caracol Industrial Park
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Clinton Foundation ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus after 90 days (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Marriage#End
Needs closure from uninvolved editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In looking it over, a closure at this point could only come out "no consensus". Of the options presented only two have enough support to consider; the first of these has about as much opposition as support (as of this writing), and the other has less support (despite lack of active opposition) than the option that has both noteworthy support and opposition.  So, they kind of just cancel each other out, especially given that sometimes the same parties are supporting/opposing multiple options. The matter is one of editorial judgement, not policy or source analysis.  An obvious option is also missing: that the matter should be left to editorial judgement on a per-article basis.  It may be more practical to re-RfC this with combined and clarified options, and "advertise" the discussion neutrally at WP:VPP and if necessary WP:CENT.  While the matter is "minor" in the sense of impact on an article, it potentially affects every bio article about a married person, except in cases where the marriage is still extant along with the parties to it and there was only one marriage.  This means it would have major site-wide impact despite the narrowness of the quetsion, and thus that consensus should be quite clear before it is acted upon.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with here: this RfC has potential high impact and it needs much wider participation before a consensus can emerge (I count less than a dozen editors chiming in). Suggest a relisting with wider advertising. — JFG talk 21:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Closed as No Consensus to allow renewed discussion as SMcCandlish and JFG suggest. No input in last three weeks. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:South West Trains
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:South West Trains ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Closed as No Consensus. There are only three definite opinions expressed, and two conditional opinions. Per WP:CONSENSUS, this level of participation is not enough to override wider guidelines such as WP:NTT, especially given the complete lack of participation over the last 8 weeks. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:The Stooges (album)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Stooges (album) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked into closing this, but didn't feel comfortable based upon the information presented so I did a little research and added my own vote. I think I added enough material that this should be easier to close now.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus to not including "rock and roll" as a genre (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done Preferences were in favor of a Green-Blue-Red, open-dashed-closed shackle, dotted-half full-full lock image (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Milky Way#Request for comment
Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC. Best Polyamorph (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Dan Koehl (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it was not done. I asked for the consensus to be assessed. So please could an uninvolved editor close this properly. Many thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done non-involved editor closing as no consensus to overturn previous discussions (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done Closed as only partial consensus on some sub-sections, and no clear consensus on overall behavior. Please see close message for further details.  (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Three-editor non-involved editor verbose NAC. See talk page for reasoning.  (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

==Wikipedia talk:Username policy#"Official" accounts representing individuals as opposed to groups== Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Username policy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Consensus against preventative automatic blocking of these usernames. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

==Talk:New York#RFC: Should the lead feature information about New York City over information about New York State== Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New York ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done closed as consensus in favor of reducing emphasis on NYC. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus for inclusion of proposed points. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

==Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?== Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey ? Listing after a request on my talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done closed with consensus that "murder" is not necessarily a violation of NPOV (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

==Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?== Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done by, as this was also requested two sections above. P p p er y 19:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links/Noticeboard/Archive 18
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus? --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion now archived at External links/Noticeboard/Archive 18. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done closed with partial consensus (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Radha Madhav Dham
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Radha Madhav Dham ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

done Due to extremely limited participation, closed as no consensus. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Saudi Arabia#RFC: Birthplace of Islam and Arabs
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Saudi Arabia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed with clear consensus against original text, and rough consensus for Zero's suggested replacement text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 63
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 63 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed with consensus to not use the lists as sources of critical opinion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

==Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Proposal: AfD with no participants should be relisted indefinitely, not closed, until there is at least one other participant== Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus of this RfC? Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a big one, which looks like consensus to me but I'm WP:INVOLVED. Would some kind soul go through the closing motions? — JFG talk 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done

Talk:Tomas Gorny
Would an uninvolved sysop assess the consensus at Talk:Tomas Gorny? This RfC needs closed. I should note that there are SPA accounts that joined the discussion in order to add a comment to delete the source. Eliko007 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note:The above user is one of the series of accounts which have recently emerged and are adamant in adding a bunch of puffery to the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: article later deleted on similar grounds Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: article later deleted on similar grounds Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)
Would an uninvoled and experienced editor kindly assess the consensus here. Apologies in advance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would an uninvolved and experienced editor assess the consensus ? Thanks, --Carliertwo (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Banjica concentration camp
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Germany#RFC:_Adding_Nazi_Germany_to_Infobox
Needs close from uninvolved editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs) 11:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTubers#Propose simplifying inclusion criterion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of YouTubers ? I started the 2011 discussion at Talk:List of YouTubers/Archive 5, so I am not closing this discussion even though the consensus is clear. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Casey Affleck
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Casey Affleck ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music#Images
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:International Justice Mission#Request for comment on placement of criticism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Justice Mission ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * due to low participation. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ After relisting, the rough consensus supports incorporation of criticism where appropriate throughout the article instead of in one "Criticism" section. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Drafts ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus for the proposal as written. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with clear consensus for grouping and rough consensus for grouping into tenure and highlight sections. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:European Graduate School#RfC about use primary sources in section "Status"
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:European Graduate School ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus for altering the inclusion of the sources listed. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive
Needs uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Re-requested closure at WP:AN on assumption that more than one closer may be needed. --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Joint closure authored by myself and posted with multi-part conclusion.  See close for full details. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft talk:US Presidents navbox
Requesting an uninvolved editor to kindly assess consensus about the draft merge of US Presidents and US Presidential Administrations, which strongly overlap each other. This RfC is the continuation of a previous debate held at Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 7 (29 January – 3 March), following the process suggested by the closer. Thanks, — JFG talk 15:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with rough consensus for Proposal C. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Lord North (disambiguation)
Needs an uninvolved closer, to assess the consensus. Thanks. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Abkhazia#Proposal for the Abkhazia Article
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abkhazia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Plummer v. State/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Plummer v. State/Archive 1 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with consensus to include the majority of the proposed text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about the photo in the Capture and release of hostages section
Would like an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ned Kelly ? Thanks, David. moreno 72    09:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as in favor of including the picture of the monument. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus#Press Criticism - Wikipedia's Multiple Parallel Narratives
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Jesus ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus for restructuring. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as clear consensus in favor of proposed changes. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Placement of expand language templates
I am requesting early closure of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout which has turned into a slanging match. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (non-admin closure)  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 10:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have undone the close. It should be allowed to run the full 30 days, and should be given a proper close by an administrator. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Er, you didn't. All you did was the  and  templates that had been added by . As far as the RFC system is concerned, it's still closed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While I am refraining from reverting your revertion; please don't reverse closes unilaterally.There were ample valid grounds for a snow close.And WP:AN is the appropriate venue for discussing closure-related problems! Winged Blades Godric 17:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Had an administrator closed it, I would in fact, have opened a discussion. I firmly disagree with "ample grounds for a snow close", and while I've no doubt it was done with the best of intentions, I firmly disagree with a non-administrator responding to a request for administrative action. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin. Should I have closed it? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that rhetorical? You know damn well you shouldn't have closed it. I didn't realize you were an admin. That renders my revert rather pointless. By the numbers it's 123. It was my hope that the closing admin would look past that, and actually adjudicate this based on actual arguments, which, if one ignores the handful of baseless votes, seem to be fairly even. One vote from an administrator, however, renders all other votes meaningless, right or wrong, and is, sadly, "ample grounds for a snow close". Joefromrandb (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was rhetorical. But if I hadn't already !voted, I could probably have closed it in order to stop the escalation which was already in WP:NPA territory. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * --Whatever is posted at this noticeboard(which is a sub-board of WP:AN) is typically meant for administrators.But that does not exclude any editor from taking an action on the issues; esp. if that could be performed without the use of any tool specifically provided to the sysops.Also, see this RFC.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 08:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was clearly a malicious reversion. This reverting person is one of the only two people who disagrees with the others in that discussion. So, he is simply prolonging the inevitable as a last act of defiance before the consensus eventually changes Wikipedia to the way he does not like. I think a closure by an uninvolved editor must never be reversed by an involved editor, at least, not without a round of communication.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 15:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

✅ As an editor with no prior involvement in the issue, I reviewed the RfC and the related prior discussions ne novo and find that the clear consensus for placement of these templates is at the top of the article. See close for full rationale. While I am confident experienced involved editors are familiar with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I am linking to this for those who may not have recently reviewed it. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Be bold#Proposal to add a sentence about page moves
Would someone please formally close this. Legobot removed the RfC template as lapsed after a month a few days ago, and it has yet to be closed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus for proposed instruction. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Otto Warmbier#Request for comments dated 28 April 2017
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Otto Warmbier ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - Winged Blades Godric 06:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with no consensus to remove "allegedly". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

==Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack#Request for comment on Theodore Postol's views and responsibility for the attack== Please, close this. . Erlbaeko (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus for the RfC as asked. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#RfC: Possible POV of §Authoritarian tendencies
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Closed as moot; the section in question has been removed entirely. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC) updated Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your closure is reverted, Eggishorn. May you please modify the "done" template, so the bot won't archive the request? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with consensus to retain the POV tags but further specific remedies for other concerns expressed requires further focused discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bahá'í Faith#Request for Comment: Lead Section
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bahá'í Faith ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as moot due to consensus being previously implemented. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

==Talk:Vladimir Lenin#RfC regarding the parallel drawn between the cult of personality of Lenin, and that of George Washington== Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Lenin ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus for removal of the challenged statement. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ethereum#RFC on lede paragraph
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ethereum ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus for any one of the presented options. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about adding photo's in the armour section
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Ned Kelly Thank you David. moreno 72    12:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with consensus to add one of the two images. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC: UK railway station disambiguation
Getting on for a month old, and there hasn't been any new discussion for a couple of weeks. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor asses the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains?--Cúchullain t/ c 16:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with consensus for Option D: Use Xxx railway station (Location) for all stations. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as the disputed text does not have consensus for inclusion as originally quoted. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

==Talk:One America News Network#RfC about sentence describing coverage instructions of specific subjects by owner Charles Herring in the lead== Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:One America News Network }}? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as there is no consensus for inclusion of the questioned text in the lead. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a clear consensus to describe Carl Benjamin as an "Anti-feminist YouTuber". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

==Talk:George Washington#Request for comment on whether or not the painting known as "Washington Crossing the Delaware" should be included in this article== Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:George Washington? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a clear consensus to retain the disputed image. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Snoop Dogg discography
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Snoop Dogg discography? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus for splitting. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC on the original author
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bitcoin Cash? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with consensus to oppose naming an "author" for this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Steven  Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 13:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you still doing this? * Pppery * it has begun... 00:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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:Paul Stamets
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Stamets? 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)
 * ✅ 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:White Croats
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White Croats? Thanks.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus to make the proposed edits. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Sabine Weyand
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sabine Weyand? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as moot due to the acceptance of the "newer" text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bell Media Radio
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)
 * Legobot "dropped" it because thirty days had elapsed. WP: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. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * ✅ 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
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers? 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)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus after nearly 3 months with extremely limited participation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Super Audio CD
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Super Audio CD? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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)

Talk:Donji Kraji
Would an experienced editor assess the situation at Talk:Donji_Kraji? Thanks, Ceha --Čeha (razgovor) 12:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donji Kraji? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with no consensus to proceed with the proposed alternative version. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Khalida Jarrar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Khalida Jarrar? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus due to lack of participation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Gas van
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gas van? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a clear consensus against the proposed sources and content. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a consensus against inclusion of the disputed material. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Oswestry/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oswestry/Archive 1? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a clear consensus to include the Welsh language name. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Color Developing Agent 3 and Color Developing Agent 4
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)
 * ✅ 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)

==Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#RfC: Should an infobox be added to the article: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart== 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)
 * ✅ 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)

Requests for comment/April Fools' 3 Part 4
✅ Would an administrator please assess the consensus at the discussions at this page? No rush on this, since it won't be needed until next April, but it should be done thoroughly, since there are (in my view) a lot of non-policy based responses that need to be discounted. Thanks, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC) ......
 * Closed RfC #4 (talk and project spaces) as clear consensus to ban pranks on Talk and Help Talk pages and rough consensus to not impose such a ban on Wikiprojects with further considerations. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Requests for comment/April Fools' 3 Part 5
✅ Would an administrator please assess the consensus at the discussions at this page? No rush on this, since it won't be needed until next April, but it should be done thoroughly, since there are (in my view) a lot of non-policy based responses that need to be discounted. Thanks, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC) ......
 * Closed RfC #5 (joke XfD's) as no consensus to initiate the proposed restriction. This closes the last of this group of RfC's. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Noël Coward#RfC on 1944 controversy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Noël Coward ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with consensus against proposed text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

==Talk:Richard Blumenthal#Restored comments on military service controversy to 2010 campaign section and Talk:Richard Blumenthal== Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Richard Blumenthal and Talk:Richard Blumenthal ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This should be easier to close now, due to an additional !vote for the majority. Alsee (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with consensus for coverage in the U.S. Senate - 2010 election section. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:David Koch#Lede rfc
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Koch? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with no consensus to including the information in the lede. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about the MEK's appeal in its homeland
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with no consensus ...established for making the proposed edits. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:U.S. state#Request for comment on state-equivalents
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)
 * ✅ 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:Donald Trump#RfC: books in lead
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: books in lead? Thanks, &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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)

Talk:List of music considered the worst#RFC for album inclusion
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. &#x222F; WBG converse 03:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you doing? --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅} 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)

==Template talk:Infobox film#RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?== 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 without closure. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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"?
RfC requesting an admin closing. Thanks, Springee (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus for the proposed inclusion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

==Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#MOS:TVIMAGE – explicitly allow (and maybe prefer?) show logos== 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)
 * ✅ Closed with no consensus to implement the proposed change. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sixth Tone
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)
 * ✅ 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
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)
 * ✅ 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)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The New Republic
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   10:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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)

==Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?== 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)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus achieved on the reliability of Paste. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:WikiLeaks#RfC on OPCW documents related to Douma chemical attack
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)
 * ✅ Closed with a clear consensus against inclusion of the proposed text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Turning_Point_USA#RfC:_Concerning_removal_of_material_from_this_article
Not listed at ANRFC, close called for at BLPN
 * Closed as clear consensus is to remove the material about Lambert's separation from Students for Trump/Turning Point Action and subsequent actions. No consensus was able to be discerned about the acceptable text to include considering the purchase of Students for Trump/Turning Point Action by Turning Point USA. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Project Veritas#RfC on verifiability in ACORN section
Can an uninvolved and politically neutral editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Project Veritas#RfC on verifiability in ACORN section? I would close it myself, but I am not doing so because of my COI. Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a clear consensus on statements 1, 3, and 4 and a rough consensus on statement 2 that the language challenged is not accepted. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:University of Pittsburgh

 * Can a neutral editor please close this RfC? A bot removed the RfC template a while ago but the discussion was never formally resolved. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Although this has been opened for several months, it might be best to wait one more week; another editor pointed out that this would impact several other articles - other campuses of the same university - so I've just dropped a note about this RfC on the relevant Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to close it, but found that an NC outcome wasn't ideal so I !voted instead. Anyone else want to try? Hobit (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus still after over four months with a recommendation that other dispute resolution venues be considered. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_on_CNN
Not requested on ANRFC, close requested within the RfC by multiple editors
 * ✅ Closed under the snowball clause with immediate and overwhelming consensus that CNN new is generally reliable and that CNN opinion is adequately covered by existing policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mary_Shelley
Not requested at ANRFC, close requested at AN instead.
 * ✅ Closed with an endorsement for an infobox based on the clear consensus of thread participants. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Political_endorsements
Not requested at ANRFC, close requested within the RfC by multiple editors and at AN
 * ✅ Speedy close per the Snowball Clause due to prior consensus established recently and lack of time before the RfC could be implemented and requested multiple times (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Douma_chemical_attack
Last comment was on 8 August so I think we are ready for closure. There has been significant input from editors. Burrobert (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with no consensus to include the proposed material.  (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 17:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 84
Archived without formal closure, but received a great deal of input, and should be closed, or the disputes about the subject will continue. It consists of two essentially competing proposals. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just been through that whole discussion and I can't discern any consensus at all. I left it unclosed because a "no consensus" close won't do anything to stop the disputes you mention, and someone else might want to try.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As with other RfCs that are basically a !voting exercise tacked onto the end of longer discussions, this one will probably need to be examined in the context of the threads that led up to it (I think the main one is also at NPOVN). From what I recall of this one, the policy arguments are very clear, versus some royalty wikiproject grousing that probably amounts to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:CONLEVEL issues, though I might have missed something. I haven't looked at it in months (but participated heavily at the time, so I'm involved). The overall gist is whether it is OR to extrapolate from what nobility title someone would have had if the title had not been abolished, and calling that person by that title in articles on WP (when the person doesn't make any such claim, and RS don't do it either).  The answer seems pretty clear, though there's a lot of verbiage to wade through.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a rough consensus that titles in pretense should not be generally used in article titles, infoboxes, etc. unless its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources demonstrates that a specific person is commonly named as such. (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib)

Talk:Koala
No new comments for the last month, but plenty of clear expressions of preference. It's not one of these "triplet of admins please" RFCs, but some uninvolved editor needs to put the beast to bed now. I'm involved or I'd close it down myself. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a rough consensus to include "koala bear" in the lead with some form of indication that "bear" is biologically inexact. (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Indian subcontinent
This needs a closure, with a note about if there is a consensus (and if there is, then what is the consensus). The bot has already removed the RfC template. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 02:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC expired over a week ago. No one interested to close? Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 02:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * More than two weeks now. Is there no one interested to close this? Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 00:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I remember recieving strong rebuke for posting "invalid RfC" and "malformed RfC" in hours after posting the RfC. But, after dozens of editors including many long standing admins taking part in it... no one is interested to close it, not even as no consensus. It's been more than three weeks. Interesting. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 21:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Aditya: you can see that there are a number of even older RfCs that have yet to be closed. I know it's frustrating to have waited three weeks after the length of the time of an RfC but, unfortunately, that's just the way some issues go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't mind waiting. But waiting with a feeling that this might never bear any fruit is what frustrates me. The dispute was already going for two months before the RfC, and had been going on and off for years. As far as I can see it takes much less time to make a real human baby than to resolve a dispute on the Wikipedia 😂. Thanks for the kind response. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 19:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus on the inclusion of Afghanistan and Myanmar in the lead's definition and no consideration of the other issues raised. (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 21:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies
Less likely to form clear agreement. As author of article and initiator of RfC I am personally for  moving on towards  AfD discussion to seek clear community opinion, but  may be experienced user might want to suggest any other method of dispute resolution, merge or move discussion or AfD discussion itself. Thanks.Bookku (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a consensus to rename the article. (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 22:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran
Requesting an experienced editor or admin to close this please (some editors in these discussions have a history of challenging the close, so a bit of 'thick skin' may be required). Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with no consensus to remove the disputed text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 20:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#RfC: Misinformation visual
There's already been one attempt to close this, which was overturned following an AN discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 23:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The conflict lasted since 14 may 2020. I reverted two more time. And then compromised for the image without text. Which was also reverted. I then stopped the edit war and still waiting for a consensus while the image and the controversial text is enforced in the page. Thanks for having a look at it. Iluvalar (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Iluvalar is topic banned from Covid-19 under general sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed after re-analysis with a clear preponderance to Option #3 among those arguments that were policy-compliant. (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_South_China_Morning_Post_(SCMP)|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309#RfC: South China Morning Post (SCMP) ==

Been archived for a while, a large number of contributors so it would be great if it got a proper close. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Unarchived and closed with a clear consensus in favor of Option #1 but a rough consensus that additional considerations apply at some higher rate than "normal". (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 05:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Newsmax
RFC on deprecation of a source. Looking like a WP:SNOW, but waited until 7 days were up. Could someone please do the honours? - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Snowball clause close per multiple request within the thread and the above. Clear consensus that  Newsmax is at least "generally unreliable" and moderately-clear consensus that therefore Newsmax should be deprecated as a source. (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 14:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)