Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 19

CfD backlog
There are currently many open discussions, including some from early April. Please see the list at Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure.

Thanks to those who have closed the oldest ones from January to March in recent weeks. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a nearly a month after the previous message and the backlog has only increased in the past month. Please help!! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Another few weeks and April is at least cleared. The May backlog has piled up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Resolved mark (for the time being). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Period in country" category discussions
There are currently more than 20 open discussions about categories that are (roughly) of the form "Period in country", these discussions are listed here. Could an experienced administrator have a look at these discussions? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:I'm Coming Out
Assessment is needed. --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Done AlbinoFerret  06:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (proposals)
Request that an uninvolved individual close this discussion, which seems to have run its course. Issue is complicated by accusations that it was improperly raised. 00:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Done The RFC was moved to an archive here Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_126 it has been closed now. AlbinoFerret  06:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 8

 * Discussion has been and remains quite nasty. The RfC has potentially serious consequences for the article, but it has been open for long enough and has had enough participants that a consensus should be clear. Admin close preferred because there is a real danger that participants would revert an NAC. From the reaction to 's intervention I would conclude that there is no danger of an NAC being reverted. Scolaire (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC). Edited 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Francis Schonken (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Palestine
Procedural closure due to ongoing existing request at Talk:State of Palestine which involves the same move request. Should be resubmitted after that request has been concluded. Rob984 (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . Rob984 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Olympic Games
Alakzi (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  13:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Eliot Higgins
Would an uninvolved editor please assess Talk:Eliot Higgins There has been no further debate for 9 days and the editors appear unable to reach an agreement. ? Thanks, Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * RfCs usually run for 30 days, for outside editors to weigh in, not just regulars to the page. So, wait a bit and hope others will see the RfC and respond. As a matter of fact, I will add my opinion sometime today. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 08:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The requester seems to have listed the date they requested closure as initiated date instead of the date the discussion started. I've fixed it. Tvx1 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  16:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

RfD backlog
I'd like to request a close on the following RfDs. There are more, but I'm limiting this list to those initiated in July. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 18 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 30 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 24 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 24 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 18 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 1 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 28 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31 –
 * done by various people. Jenks24 (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

AfD Requests
First of all, apologies if this is not the correct venue, but it seems to be the most logical place to request this. The 2015 Arras attack article was nominated for deletion yesterday in good faith. I have no issue with said nomination, or the nominator for doing so. It was also listed at WP:ITN/C yesterday. Obviously, a current AfD discussion precludes an appearance on ITN. The significance of the event has become more apparent overnight. The article has been improved and updated. Consensus seems to have formed that the article should be kept, although this is not unanimous (Disclosure, I !voted "keep"). Therefore, I hereby request that the nomination be closed as keep, without prejudice to a renomination on or after 1 September. Such a closure would allow the article to appear at ITN should sufficient consensus be gained for it to do so. If there is a failure to appear at ITN, this request should not be seen as an attempt to subvert the AfD process, but more in the spirit of WP:IAR as an attempt to remove a perceived barrier to the article appearing at ITN. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * done ages ago. Who normally archives this page? Are they away? Jenks24 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall
Would anybody close this RfC? The proposer has signaled here that he is no longer interested in discussing this. Thanks. Kraxler (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done NE Ent 23:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television
Discussion's pretty much dead, save for some remarks here and there, and it is clear that the general consensus is "Support inclusion." Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, but next time, don't include any information in your notice that could even make it appear non-neutral.  Let the closer see for him or herself whether the consensus is clear or not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? A close is requested in the subsection Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done by . Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Revision control
Would anyone like to take a shot at closing Talk:Revision control? It's been open for over a month now. Some level of knowledge about computer science/software(?) might be useful. Jenks24 (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anybody? Jenks24 (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Jenks24 (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
Would an uninvolved admin please close this. Its rather long. AlbinoFerret 17:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, some admin close this, its to the point that there is rehash and rehash going on with nothing new in days. Its already past the 7 days most sections on WP:AN/I are closed by. Thanks. AlbinoFerret  01:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Done --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * done by Jobrot. Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves

 * Requested moves backlog

Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: situation is much improved, but there's still a six-week backlog of move requests. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As of late July 2015, the backlog is still about one month (and some of the ones in the backlog should actually be easy closes; others?... not so much). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky ? See the subsection Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  19:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Rubin Carter
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rubin Carter ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  00:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Corvette leaf spring
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Corvette leaf spring ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  01:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Pakistan/Archive 18
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pakistan/Archive 18 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  01:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

WT:MOSNUM
Would an uninvolved admin please assess the state of consensus in this discussion and close if appropriate ? There have been no new substantive contributions for some time, and so the discussion seems to have reached a natural end-point. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Francis Schonken (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 26
No discussion in over a month. Template creator attempted closure on 23 August. A non-admin closure was reverted today in favour of uninvolved admin closure today. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done Francis Schonken (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done--by . Drmies (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dictatorship of the proletariat
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dictatorship of the proletariat ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  17:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ragnvald Knaphövde
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ragnvald Knaphövde ? See the subsection Talk:Ragnvald Knaphövde. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Melbourne
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Melbourne ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of kings of Persia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of kings of Persia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Bot requests
Removal of persondata by bot: the RfC ran for 30 days, not sure what can be concluded at the end of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done On September 7th. See Bot_requests/Archive_64. That should clear the top of this terrible leaderboard. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Irataba
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Irataba ? See the subsection Talk:Irataba. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  12:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Blue Army (Poland)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Blue Army (Poland) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  13:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Deluge (software)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deluge (software) ? See the subsection Talk:Deluge (software). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  13:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Interstellar probe
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Interstellar probe ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  15:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sailor Moon
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sailor Moon ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  15:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's $5 for Drmies, Cunard. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States–Cuban Thaw
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States–Cuban Thaw ? See the subsection Talk:United States–Cuban Thaw. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT rights opposition
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:LGBT rights opposition ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 121
It seems best this one gets closed ASAP, as its outcome is interpreted in different ways lately, leading to reverts on this page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The closer might want to look here to see why a close was requested . AlbinoFerret  13:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Now HereSPACKlick (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Contact (1997 South Korean film)
Open since July. Jenks24 (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Jenks24 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mat (Russian profanity)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mat (Russian profanity) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Fire Emblem Fates
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fire Emblem Fates ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  00:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  00:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of cities proper by population
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of cities proper by population ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Israel
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israel ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  01:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Providence (religious movement)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Providence (religious movement) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  14:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Eagles (band)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Eagles (band) ? Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Eagles (band) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  14:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Sockpuppet
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Sockpuppet ? See the subsection Template talk:Sockpuppet. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox building
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox building ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox locomotive
requested a close from an uninvolved administrator at Template talk:Infobox locomotive using admin help. Two responding administrators (including myself) felt this request would be better served by filing a request here. Mkdw talk 19:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * done, my closing comments are going to sound familiar to you. , either I'm getting really old or there's no "initiated" template here for me to date. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Buddhism and violence
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Buddhism and violence ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  14:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 125
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 125 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  14:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, but this one illustrates that some of the listings here are utterly "work in search of an objective". --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done -- in as much this could be done. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Henry Hoolulu Pitman
Oldest in the backlog. Jenks24 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done --BDD (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Borodino and Talk:Battle of Borodino
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Borodino and Talk:Battle of Borodino ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * done -- note that nothing got done. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Fordlândia
Oldest in the backlog. Jenks24 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Alakzi (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Move review
Renewed request. This is overdue, and everyone seems to want it closed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

 * We'd need an uninvolved administrator to close the case at Administrators' noticeboard, please. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems the involved editors came to an agreement; we'd still need an uninvolved admin for formal closure (for protection against future incidents), please: Administrators%27_noticeboard. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly reminder that we still need formal closure from an uninvolved admin, please: WP:ANB. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for formal closure on WP:ANB -- would you please check, it's easier than it seems. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for formal closure on WP:ANB -- would you please check, it's easier than it seems. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * done bd2412  T 18:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
This RfC addresses two issues: 1) Does the MoS allow the use of animate pronouns ("who," "she," etc.) to refer to fictional characters or must we use only inanimate pronouns ("which," "it"); and 2) Does this rule need to be stated explicitly in the MoS, etc.? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For reference, it hasn't been 30 days yet . -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed by NE Ent 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Sarrin (June–July 2015)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Sarrin (June–July 2015) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC) ✅ I closed this Sep 6th, not sure why I didnt mark it. AlbinoFerret 00:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Watson (politician)
Fork of open move discussion. The nominator (PatGallacher) has agreed to my request to withdraw it, so closure is uncontroversial housekeeping. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Done NE Ent 22:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive896
Would an uninvolved admin please assess this? It has been open since 10 August 2015.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 03:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done; the fact that it rolled into the archive indicates insufficient support. To properly close we'd have unarchive, wrap a close tag around it, and let it archive again. A lot of pixelwork for not purpose. NE Ent 22:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Microsoft Surface
The whole discussion has turned into a trench warfare. TheHoax (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion was archive boxed on July 14 after an RfC was opened seeking more input on the topic, though that hasn't had any new input in about 4 days and so probably could be closed. PaleAqua (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ping. It has been quite a while now without new discussion. A close by an uninvolved editor would be appreciated. PaleAqua (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We have pretty much a consensus of all save one, a formal close here would probably help against a repeat of an earlier edit war. See in particular Talk:Microsoft Surface. This should be an easy close at this point; especially concerning the use of the disambiguated "Surface (first generation)" in prose. PaleAqua (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that there are two motions, both opened on 25th of August. One of them had active discussion three days ago, so I don't think this one's ready to flip. Samsara 06:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done Discussion has stopped and there's a clear consensus; the rfc was improperly closed by the filer but has been archived, best just to move on. NE Ent 23:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Transhumanist politics
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Transhumanist politics ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  00:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  00:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Miss Cleo
Would an experienced and uninvolved editor please assess, summarize, and formally close the RfC on the Miss Cleo article. It is over 30 days old and the Legobot has removed its expired RFC template. The RfC is: Talk:Miss Cleo Richard27182 (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC) doneSPACKlick (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Monsanto legal cases
Would an experienced and neutral editor please look at and close this RfC? Thank you very much for assistance. SageRad (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We need another closer to review this. As noted in this section, the person who came along and "closed" the RfC was not an uninvolved editor. Please, we need someone who is truly neutral in regard to controversy over Monsanto and GMO foods in general to help out. Please... someone who is not involved in editing or pushing points of view regarding this controversy cluster, we need your services. Thanks in advance. SageRad (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no indication JzG was involved in any way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Second SageRad's concerns and submit Kingofaces knows very well that the closer JzG/Guy is clearly deeply involved per their statement at ArbCom regarding GMO articles, and I would go so far as to call this close as requiring corrective sanctions. Again, in no way is this closing editor uninvolved. Jus  da  fax  18:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I don't see any indications of involvement, so please don't misrepresent me. They don't have a history in this topic and appear to be commenting in ArbCom as a largely outside observer (uninvolved tags have been removed in the case). They are a pretty well known admin for tackling WP:FRINGE/BLP issues, some of which have come into agricultural BLP related topics, but nothing that would consider them involved in this particular topic. At this point though, it's probably best for the closer to respond here when they get a chance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit shows involvement as you were informed by SageRad in the discussion you are participating in at Talk:Monsanto legal cases and yet you say you "don't see any indications of involvement." Jus  da  fax  18:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I already addressed that topic and don't see it as involvement in this one. That's well within the fringe/BLP topics he commonly edits and wouldn't be considered involvement in this particular topic. Personally, I don't see him in GMO/Monsanto related topics when I edit in them. As before though, I think it's better for him to respond here rather than us fill up this page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * SageRad commenced the RfC because he couldn't force a consensus on including material or edit-war it in, there was certainly no consensus for inclusion during the discussion, and now when he doesn't get the result he wants he not only seeks a second bite of the cherry, he accuses the closer of gaming the system! I can see gaming going on, but not on the part of the closure, who correctly found solid consensus for inclusion where there was national coverage, otherwise we were making a mountain out of a molehill. That's the system at work. If these cases are significant enough to be included in our encyclopaedia, then finding coverage that goes beyond local coverage should be easy. As was constantly pointed out, these cases haven't been heard yet and any outcome is most likely years away. So what's the hurry? If they become significant, then they will attract wider coverage, and we will include them and we won't have to go through a massive discussion that has already been to various noticeboards and reached out to ArbCom. Quit trying to play games, SageRad. You started the RfC process, you would have rightly insisted those with contrary views abide by the decision if it had gone the other way, and now you want another busy admin to wade through a huge and contentious discussion and make another decision and keep it up until you wear everyone down with your persistence. The closer has given a clear way forward, and it is what you have been told from the start: if the case is significant enough, it will gain significant coverage. All you have to do is wait. --Pete (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The above allegations regarding myself are absolutely off base, and this is not the place for this discussion so i will not comment more. The record speaks for itself, for anyone willing to look at it. SageRad (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Current Status: I have asked JzG/Guy to undo their closing of the RfC due to the reasons explained on the link above, namely that the editor is not uninvolved or neutral on this topic. If they fail to undo their closing, then it will have to be brought to AN as per the advice here. This request here is finished, i believe. I repeat that i am refraining from responding to any of the allegations against me above, because this is not the forum for it. SageRad (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Removing poorly sourced material from a WP:BLP under attack form partisans does not constitute involvement. If you're going to set the bar that low you're unlikely to find an admin who passes the test, frankly, given the amount of sturm und drang the anti-GMO warriors have stirred up in recent months. If you dispute the actual close then you're welcome to request review at WP:AN. Disputing it on the basis of who assessed it, is unlikely to reflect well on you, so do be sure to show some reason why it's actually an incorrect summary of the debate. I think it's accurate as I have been watching it for a while, but I am just one person. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ✔️ Francis Schonken (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 121
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 121. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done – MOS:IDENTITY (and related guidance like WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines) was updated after the initiation of the RfC, with enough support by the participants in that VPP discussion, making a formal closure to the original VPP discussion a superfluous exercise, leave alone whether it would still be possible to provide an adequate closure with many early comments in that discussion referring to the former wording of the MOS guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think a close is warranted, and MOS:IDENTITY should be updated to reflect the consensus (if it is determined that there is one) at the RfC. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think a close is warranted owing to the extensive discussion. The consensus in the discussion should be recorded by an RfC close and the guideline updated if it differs from the consensus at the RfC. Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur a close is needed, and this would be significant enough it would need an admin closure, preferably by a panel. Francis Schonken is not an admin and his "Not done" is just an expression of what he's not doing. Tweaks to MOS:IDENTITY while that huge RfC was open about MOS:IDENTITY cannot (except by curious accident) represent consensus, but were out-of-process. Commenters at the RfC would have been taking such moves into consideration while commenting anyway (I know I was). It cannot be that an RfC can be WP:GAMEd and mooted by rushing to change the wording one-sidedly while that very wording is under discussion, or we'd simply scrap the whole RfC system as useless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Francis Schonken (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Side discussion

 * Just as this comes up, the Washington Post editor who maintains their style guide has issued an update. . The Washington Post will henceforth use the singular "they" in situations where gender is ambiguous. John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While that has no bearing on the RfC, it's interesting news. Kind of shocking, given the heretofore conservative nature (both linguistically and, since the 1990s, sociopolitically) of that paper. I think this might be the first major news organization to support singular they (and perhaps the last to drop the hyphen in e-mail, though a lot of individuals and book publishers still use it for consistency with e-government, e-commerce, and e-everything-else; "egovernment" looks completely ridiculous).  I'm curious what else WashPost has changed, though frankly their style guide has very little influence.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the only way this could affect our two RfC's would be if it caused a significant number of additional editors to join the discussion and/or if it caused a significant number of current participants to change their opinion.  And to whatever extent that is going to happen, I believe it will have happened by Dec. 15th. Richard27182 (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Caribou
Merge request open for fifteen months, due to the fact that participants cannot agree whether a consensus has been reached or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  20:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 29
The RfD backlog isn't as bad as it has been in recent months, but there are still some stragglers. Attention to them would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 29 –
 * ✔️ Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  20:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Since you've moved this from the archive back to the main page, I've changed the links from Village pump (proposals)/Archive 125 to Village pump (proposals). Cunard (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  16:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Antikyra
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Antikyra ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ boxed it up. AlbinoFerret  15:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films
We need a close. People keep reverting all attempts to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.101 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Third party closure needed or there will be whining. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  22:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_152
Should be easy, despite the length. This is covered (generally) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/FAQ and is a perennial dispute at MOS, as shown by Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive index binary prefixes. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Im going to give it a try, Im about half way into it and if it looks like I can I will move it from the archive and close it. AlbinoFerret  22:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Done Moved here to close Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers. AlbinoFerret  23:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Heavy metal music
Could an admin or experienced, uninvolved editor please close the two RfCs at Talk:Heavy_metal_music and (...)?Thank you. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * done. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Heavy metal music
Could an admin or experienced, uninvolved editor please close the two RfCs at (...) and Talk:Heavy_metal_music?Thank you. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * done. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons? Thanks, Tvx1 11:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 2
WP:TFD has got a month-long backlog, beginning with Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 2. Alakzi (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why won't anybody help TFD? TFD sad. Alakzi (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Already done Already closed by Opabinia regalis. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Rick Perry
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rick Perry ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Siachen Glacier
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Siachen Glacier ? The opening poster wrote: "The last RfC was closed with this result. Keeping in view that result, how should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed?" Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Siachen Glacier in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Plant-based diet
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Plant-based diet ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Josh Duggar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Josh Duggar ? The last comment was made 28 August 2015 and WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done Already closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * not done No need, as the discussion is archived and result is very clearly no. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Infectious medicine
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Infectious medicine ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Would appreciate an administrator closing this RfC regarding the appropriate title and moving if deemed the consensus. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merged close request for same discussion from here. Cunard (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Closed and moved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:KalyeSerye
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:KalyeSerye ? Chihciboy (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28
The RfD backlog isn't as bad as it has been in recent months, but there are still some stragglers. Attention to them would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28 –
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 1
The RfD backlog isn't as bad as it has been in recent months, but there are still some stragglers. Attention to them would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 1 –
 * Relisted by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 2
The RfD backlog isn't as bad as it has been in recent months, but there are still some stragglers. Attention to them would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 2 –
 * Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 7
The RfD backlog isn't as bad as it has been in recent months, but there are still some stragglers. Attention to them would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 7 –
 * Relisted by . Armbrust The Homunculus 21:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Years Past Matter
Needs rationale as soon as possible. --George Ho (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret 03:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done closed, but really an RFC was not needed for this at all. So please George next time just ask the question without tagging it with RFC. RFC can be added later if the issue is controversial or major. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
Would an uninvolved admin please close this. It should be pretty easy. Its well past the 7 days for closing. AlbinoFerret 06:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Franco
There's a clear consensus but the lone dissenter hasn't responded to my queries  to wrap this up. Likely to be contentious so I'm bringing it here for a close by an uninvolved editor. Cheers, Vrac (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  18:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 2
WP:TFD has got a month-long backlog, beginning with Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 2. Alakzi (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why won't anybody help TFD? TFD sad. Alakzi (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * already done relisted: Now at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_16 due to relisting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Now archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive898. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 2
The RfD backlog isn't as bad as it has been in recent months, but there are still some stragglers. Attention to them would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 2 –
 * Relisted by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Since this is a pretty binary request, I think it could do with formal closure. 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  23:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Susya
The RfC is over a month old. Can someone please close? Settleman (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  11:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 26
The RfD backlog isn't as bad as it has been in recent months, but there are still some stragglers. Attention to them would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 26 –
 * done. Jenks24 (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_18
This TfD has been open over a month and is not straight-forward enough for a non-admin to close. Closure would be appreciated. ~ RobTalk 04:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Snježana Kordić
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Snježana Kordić ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  14:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Association for Progressive Communications
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Association for Progressive Communications ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  14:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:India
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:India ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  14:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Nazism sidebar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Nazism sidebar ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Armbrust The Homunculus 09:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Attention deficit disorder
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Attention deficit disorder ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Type 054A frigate
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Type 054A frigate ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  15:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy ? See the request for closure at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  15:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Captain America: Civil War
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Captain America: Civil War ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  15:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done Armbrust The Homunculus 10:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines ? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Obeah
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Obeah ? The category mentioned in the opening post still is in the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry/Merck
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry/Merck ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:User WikiProject United States presidential elections
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:User WikiProject United States presidential elections ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  16:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Supernatural
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Supernatural ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Image use policy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Community portal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Community portal ? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_8
This has been open for over a month now. It has 7 delete !votes against 3 keep !votes so it shouldn't be too difficult of a decision. Thanks! -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done. But in future, Tavix, please try and word your requests here more neutrally. Jenks24 (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Early 2012 Hong Kong protests
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Early 2012 Hong Kong protests ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  21:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Joseon
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joseon ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  16:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  16:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  16:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ahmed Mohamed (student)
Per User:Milowent it is WP:IAR in the best interests of building an encyclopedia "early close by Bigtimepeace in Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident (October 2009) counsels the correct action. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret 00:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Done Dragons flight (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Brian Austin Green
Looking for an uninvolved admin to close this discussion. A bot keeps removing the code on an RfC that's more than 30 days old, even though no admin has closed the RfC. There is a concerne that with the coding gone it's been taken off the list of active RfCs and so no one will ever come by to close it. BOZ (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret 00:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * done--Aervanath (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:B'Day (Beyoncé album)
There is a consensus already. George Ho (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret 20:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 24
Would an admin assess the consensus at Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 24? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * done Marking as done, although it is now under deletion review. The immediate need is satisfied. ~ RobTalk 23:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? There has been little discussion in the past week. Please consider the closed RfC Village pump (proposals)/Archive 125 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . 15:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? See the subsection Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . (now in archive 900). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Football at the 1956 Summer Olympics
Oldest RM in the backlog. Jenks24 (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon ? There have been no comments in 19 days. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion ? Please consider the earlier RfC Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * RfC opened 20:17, 21 August 2015 by myself; ended 21:00, 20 September 2015 . -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thread was archived to Village pump (proposals)/Archive 127. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Done Moved RFC out of archives to close, its here Village_pump_(proposals) AlbinoFerret 20:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident
Could an uninvolved editor see this discussion and close if appropriate? The AfD discussion for this page, Articles for deletion/Ahmed Mohamed (student), closed with a consensus to move from Ahmed Mohamed (student) to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. Before it was moved, a separate RM, to move the article to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed, existed. Epic Genius (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 21:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Quds Day
The discussion needs to be reviewed and closed by an univolved editor. I think enough explanation is presented at the beginning paragraph. Thank you. Mhhossein (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Mhhossein (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  21:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Pierogi
An uninvolved editor is requested to close the discussion on whether to merge Varenyky into Pierogi. — Kpalion(talk) 21:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * — Kpalion(talk) 15:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Done I also left a note on the Varenyky talk page that the discussion had been closed. AlbinoFerret  20:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Roku
Can we get an uninvolved individual to close this? Apologies in advanced.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret 14:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  15:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template
Could an uninvolved editor close this RFC? There has been no discussion in the last week, and the consensus is mostly clear. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 02:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Discussion ended on 10 September. AlbinoFerret  14:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Charas/Archives/2020/February
Would an experienced and uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Charas/Archives/2020/February ? Thank you. Richard27182 (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  15:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mizrahi Jews
Could an uninvolved editor come and assess the consensus ? Thanks. Benjil (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Mz7 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Refimprove
Can be closed early, per WP:SNOWBALL (it's unanimous in one direction, but for a single !vote). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done Armbrust The Homunculus 02:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)
It was  AlbinoFerret  12:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If an uninvolved administrator keeps up with U.S. politics and religion, they are probably familiar with Kim Davis, the court clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue same-sex (later all) marriage licences. An elevated but seemingly endless discussion has endured questioning why the biography article is not instead an event article about the controversy. Someone then essentially duplicated the biography article into an event article titled, not Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy, but Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. We started a Request for Comments about whether we should have two articles or one, and if one, which one, and if two, what should be the title of the event article? Please help us make sense of this discussion and determine what is the consensus. Prhartcom (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's not proper to have two identical articles with different titles, and the consensus isn't totally clear. We need more eyes. --BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC) -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to the discussion which was snow closed a week prior to this RfC, in favor of splitting the article: talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)/Archive 3- MrX 15:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That RfC has been superseded by the later RfC (the subject of this thread): RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?) -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

To the administrators: Please step in soon and resolve this. An editor has just foolishly nominated the heavily maintained Kim Davis (county clerk) for deletion at Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination). See my comment there. What is at issue is: Should there be a controversy article and a biography article, or just one article? If both, what should be the name of the controversy article? If both, should there also be a third, wider-scope Kentucky article? Wise eyes are needed. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy, thank-you for closing this discussion at the article talk page, deciding that consensus decided on one article. Could you please go one step further and decide if consensus has decided if the one article should be a biography article (named Kim Davis (county clerk)) or an event article (named Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy)? As well, we may need to clean up the two entries on this page. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know from that debate, because it is not easy to unpick from the opinions on one article versus multiple. Normal practice would be to write about the incident not the person, per WP:BLP1E, but the smart move is probably Requested Moves. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank-you; we will proceed with that advice, although it will require the involved editors to give their opinion again. Please note that there is a related AfD discussion that an editor opened without realizing this discussion was open; should you close it today as well? Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination). Prhartcom (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

''This is closed. Please archive. BTW, no one on this page ever responded.'' Prhartcom (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done Archived and the editors are moving on. AlbinoFerret  01:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. The editors are not "moving on", the editors needed assistance the entire time, but none was given. However, an administrator happened to stop by our discussion to close it for us, thankfully. Prhartcom (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry looked at "talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)/Archive 3#Split?" and I noticed it was archived. In any event, the edits I made here were just so the bot would archive the section. AlbinoFerret  03:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
An uninvolved admin is requested to assess this situation.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 23:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Now archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive899. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

stale thread, no need for formal close. NE Ent 17:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167

 * The virtually unanimous consensus a week or two ago to deprecate the huge banner version of the ENGVAR templates (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167) is being forum-shopped in an "RFC" that is not actually an RFC, at WP:Village pump (proposals) (and WP:VPPRO wouldn't even be the right venue for such a discussion anyway; it would be WP:VPPOL, since this is not a proposal, but is an out-of-process attempt to override consensus at a WP:POLICY (i.e. policy or guideline) in favor of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS nebulously hovering around some template talk pages, of templates for which there was never a consensus to begin with at MOS for "enforcing" MOS:ENGVAR in the heavy-handed manner these banner templates do plastered across the tops of article talk pages and in article and talk page editnotices, so that any editor there is constantly brow-beaten with them; many of the ENGVAR assertions in question have not been subject to a consensus discussion at all, and do not have strong national ties, thus these banners are a WP:OWN problem; these are only some of the reasons they were deprecated). I don't know what the intent/motivation is (not being a mind-reader), though I note that I announced a day or two ago that I was working on the WP:TFD for these and a categorization merger plan (the banner templates at issue do not categorize quite the same way as the unobtrusive mainspace equivalents of the banner versions). This pseudo-RFC, pseudo-proposal does not appear to have understood anything in the previous discussion, but is an odd "we need ENGVAR templates!" overreaction. The proper next venue is WP:TFD, at which seen entries in the next day or two (there are some complications to work out, even two of the template are not ENGVAR templates at all, but usurping them for non-MOS purposes to assert a form of "specialized style"; so some proposals for what to do with their underlying intent will need to be worked in).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC) PS: The poster of this not-RfC has given out 30 or so "notices" about the VPPRO discussion, to (according to its wording) anyone who has "had some involvement with" the metatemplate in question (i.e. people who have edited it, i.e. people who are likely to be in favor of it, but who may have not paid attention to it in years much less participated in the recent consensus discussion).  WT:MOS was not notified. This appears to be WP:CANVASSING.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to respond to this at length at the moment, but I can give a quick statement. I only notified people already "involved" to a certain extent. I notified people that participated in the last deletion discussion (which is part of what the proposal suggests, and basically what it does in essence even if it isn't deleted) Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 7, I notified everyone that participated in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167 first discussion, those currently in the Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9 discussion where the issue was raised, and a handful of people to recently edit the templates in question. I also posted at the location of the first discussion WT:MOS, and the talk page of the metatemplate in question. I was not aware of the discussion when it took place on the MoS talk page and I don't call the 4 supports in that archive a proper consensus for any issue this big; it was also never formally closed/evaluated. Both this RfC and the Notices I sent out were neutral, and I feel that I was within Canvassing. My goal is to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the accusation of canvassing is merited. The poster of the second RfC sent out notices even to people who voted for deprecation in the first RfC, including SMcCandlish, who is known to be a vocal and energetic defender of his views.  Seems like reasonably balanced publicization to me.
 * The issue boils down to this: "We didn't have consensus because I didn't know about the discussion" is not a valid reason to rerun an RfC, but "We didn't have consensus because not enough people knew about the discussion" is. Did enough people know about the first discussion? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course they did. MOS is one of the most watchlisted pages on the entire system and it is the obvious, normal venue for MoS-related discussions, including MOS:ENGVAR ones. The discussion for what to do about the templates, since deprecation, like how to merge their categorization functions, is a WP:TFD matter, and the TfD was already announced (in multiple places, including this very page) as in-preparation. A move that would simultaneously overturn the perfectly valid consensus discussion at WT:MOS, and thwart the upcoming TfD, is out-of-process "panic" about the deprecation notice. It should be hatted with, and normal TfD process should proceed. If someone wants to object to the merging and eventual deletion of the banner version of these templates, they can do so at the TfD, per standard operating procedure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Four supports in a subsection of a discussion on a different issue is a valid consensus for the deprecation of templates that appear on 10,000+ pages? Notification about the the discussion was not even posted at the talk page of the metatemplate in question (let alone those of all the templates affected). If it was simply the deletion in question, TFD would be the appropriate forum. It isn't. Deprecation (while close to deletion in some senses) is the concern of the RfC. The only reason I can think of to be opposed to a larger discussion, with the appropriate parts of the community more properly notified, is that the proper consensus might be different. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A discussion open long enough to be archived because there was no further interest in commenting on it, on one of the most-watchlisted pages on the entire system, that is actually the correct venue for ENGVAR-related matters, and clearly labeled that it was a proposal to deprecate this stuff,, that is sufficient. Anyone working on ENGVAR templates should be following the MOS (i.e. ENGVAR) page (how do they even know what they're implementing if they're not?), and this was a WP:POLICY discussion about whether ENGVAR should be "enforced" in a manner anything like this, not about template coding matters. It is headed next to TfD ("D" stands for "discussion" not "deletion") where everyone watching the template will get notification of the template-specific TfD discussion. The outcome of that discussion could be any number of things, including to rescope and redocument, to delete, to overturn the MOS discussion (maybe to come up with a narrower solution to the issues raised), to merge the other way around, or no consensus, or whatever.  A "help save a template I like" WP:PARENT exercise at VP is just heat, not light. All you've done is whipped up a few panicky "huh?" opposes who clearly did not digest and understand the deprecation discussion. They're objections will be factored into the TfD discussion, so I guess I should thank you in a roundabout way.  This will go to TfD discussion where it belongs shortly enough.  The fact that this heavy-handed banner is used on so many pages without any consensus being found at more than a tiny handful of those articles' talk pages, has a lot to do with why this template was deprecated. That it has no consensus to be used in the majority of places it has been used is easily demonstrated by removing it from a bunch of talk pages, editnotices, etc., to which it has been added without a discussion indicating consensus to do so, and see how many times you get reverted (for me so far: ). In the process of deprecation-tagging the templates, no one has responded other than you, days after the fact. Clearly the community totally WP:DGAFs about these darned things.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As pointed out above, there is another RFC on this topic that was on the Village Pump here is a link to the archives. Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_126. Since I closed the one on the Village Pump, I wont be closing this one. But I question if the voices of a few editors on a talk page RFC can override a Village Pump RFC with much higher participation on the same topic. That is a question best left to an admin. AlbinoFerret 14:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia
Could an uninvolved editor see this discussion and close if appropriate? The discussion is very interesting in the aspect of Wiki policy. The main question is the following: Can a group of sources introduce the term in the article to which they provide no definition at all, and without even a single reference to the primary source? We have a whole group of that sources. On the other hand there's only a single source that both defines the term and references the primary source, all with an extensive explanation of the whole question. So, as I see it, there's basically a conflict between quantity and quality. There's also a possibility to introduce the very same edit that's already present for quite some time in much more important article. Thank you. 178.167.101.96 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret 17:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  15:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Artist's impressions of astronomical objects
Compromise guideline written because of an inconclusive RfC at WT:ASTRO. Seems to have consensus, but since discussion has been slow and I am the main author, I figured I would post here instead of closing myself. Relisting is also a possibility if the amount of discussion is judged to be too little. . A2soup (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done Armbrust The Homunculus 12:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk) ? See the suggestion for a close at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * These are now old requests which are superseded by newer ones, so this section should likely be closed. Consensus has changed quite a bit, but is still unclear. See the newer request below on this page: Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?) -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Should this still be listed there? Armbrust The Homunculus 09:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps combine with Kim Davis request below. Prhartcom (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

''This is closed. Please archive. BTW, no one on this page ever responded.'' Prhartcom (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * U2713.svg Already done Sure thing. George Ho (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive899
I'm asking an admin to prosecute this thread which occurred at ANI some days ago and was archived without being closed. This edit motivated me to bring it here. As far as I see a boomerang was suggested for the initiator of that thread. Mhhossein (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A fresh instance of commenting on editor not on content by him. Mhhossein (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another one! Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done, be careful what you wish for; the two diffs given above are not NPAs, no matter how much you'd like them to be. , you are likewise headed toward a block if you keep that up: a multitude of things that by themselves are not blockable can end up forming a blockable heap of edits. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 7
. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Relisted by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * . This still needs to be closed. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 8
. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Relisted by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * . This still needs to be closed. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Watts Up With That?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Watts_Up_With_That%3F ? Thanks, Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Phineas Gage
Would an uninvolved but experienced editor or administrator please close the discussion? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. done Drmies (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bastard Noise
This AfD nomination is over a month old and needs to be closed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
An uninvolved admin is requested to do something about this situation.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 00:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Wildside (Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch song)
There is probably consensus here. I relisted it for another month, but nothing new happened since. George Ho (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Heroes: Original Soundtrack
There is a consensus, so someone should make a correct rationale. --George Ho (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, sure. "Correct rationale"? done Drmies (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 50
It's been over 30 days, and we are approaching the 5 million mark. Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus of this proposal? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done. Good luck drawing one up. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done Armbrust The Homunculus 08:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries by real GDP growth rate
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of countries by real GDP growth rate ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done Armbrust The Homunculus 09:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gospel of Mark
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gospel of Mark ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 56
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 56 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done Armbrust The Homunculus 10:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jadwiga of Poland
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jadwiga of Poland ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Joan Crawford
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Joan Crawford ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done Consensus was clear to the proposer at the end of the RFC, boxed it up to archive it. AlbinoFerret  20:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ali Khamenei
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ali Khamenei ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done SNOW RFC with no opposition, boxed it to archive it.  AlbinoFerret  20:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor close this discussion? It's been over 30 days and discussion has now ground to a halt (not to mention the previous discussion slowed by this RfC). Thank you. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Done AlbinoFerret  21:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Navbox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Navbox ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , let the chips fall where they may. done Drmies (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 3
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 3 ? See the RfC subsections Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 3 and Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 3. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Moved from archive to here Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn, and closed three RFC's in that section. AlbinoFerret  15:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  16:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/David Cameron/1
Can this GAR be closed by an uninvolved editor? There's a clear consensus and nobody has commented in a while. Brustopher (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2015 August 28
Could somebody drop by Deletion review/Log/2015 August 28 and close the Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion discussion. It's been open for 2 weeks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ping? This is 30 days old now.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Need closure on this DRV which was listed a month ago; most DRVs last a week. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anybody? Is this the DRV time forgot?  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Does this require an admin to close?- MrX 16:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done- MrX 00:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2015 August
The above two move reviews are long over their listing period and are stale, therefore they need to be closed. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Move review/Log/2015 August
 * Move review/Log/2015 August
 * Done. — ξ xplicit  02:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Remodeling of major party candidate areas
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Remodeling of major party candidate areas ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Brustopher (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:IQ and Global Inequality
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:IQ and Global Inequality ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Brustopher (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:European colonization of the Americas
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:European colonization of the Americas ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  22:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . Armbrust The Homunculus 17:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Scanian dialect/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Scanian dialect/Archive 2 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Multiple TfDs related to WikiBreak templates
All of the following TfDs need closure and were opened on the same date. ~ RobTalk 23:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_9
 * Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_9
 * Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_9
 * done by, and  respectively. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 18
. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 16:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 17
. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Relisted by . Armbrust The Homunculus 16:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 30
. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 16:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Anglo-Saxons
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anglo-Saxons ? Please consider the April 2014 discussion Talk:Anglo-Saxons in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done - MrX 18:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  04:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mariah Carey (album)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Mariah Carey (album) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  04:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jones & Jury (TV series)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jones & Jury (TV series) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  04:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jesus ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done by Esquivalience two days ago.- MrX 19:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 7
. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 16:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_7
-- Tavix ( talk ) 18:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 16:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_7
-- Tavix ( talk ) 18:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 16:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Done --Elvey(t•c) 00:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Race_and_genetics
Could an experienced editor please close this RFC? It was opened July 29, and the RFC template was automatically removed August 28, but it never was formally closed. 43.228.158.55 (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC
 * Done - MrX 16:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 31
TfD has a major backlog and this one has been open for almost two months. I'm pretty much the only admin frequently closing TfDs these days and I was involved in the background to this one, so an outsider is needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret 00:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Genetically modified food
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genetically modified food ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done - MrX 17:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of best-selling girl groups
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of best-selling girl groups ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done NE Ent 02:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  22:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Nuclear weapon
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nuclear weapon ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that the RFC is opened in a misleading manner, i.e. there was no intention to have a section devoted to an individual's view, rather an "Islamic view" containing the views of different Islamic clerics was aimed. Mhhossein (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done Closed as consensus not to include content as presented, with some suggestions for moving forward. --Errant (chat!) 21:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:College of Technology, Pantnagar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:College of Technology, Pantnagar ? A participant noted: "The RfC author appears to be requesting permission to remove the Peackock and COI warning templates on the article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - MrX 16:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . I don't think this has been closed yet. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that . I evidently placed the "done" template in the wrong section.- MrX 02:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Now done --Errant (chat!) 21:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Administrators ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Waldorf education
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Waldorf education ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done - MrX 18:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 7
. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Relisted by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Novak_Djokovic
Could an uninvolved editor please close this request? Thank you. I think that the consensus has been established. I opened the request, the admin had himself purposed the same solution, I agreed, and the editor who opposed then also agreed and entered that info to the article himself. The request then was left hanging. Since then another editor had showed up opposing, but he really has no valid stand nor any source to his cause. 94.28.177.61 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC

May, a non-Serbian and no-Croatian editor close this. I'm reverting the closure because it was not properly closed. No tag was added, and no explanation. The closure also stated that there is no consensus which is false. All 3 mayor contributors have reached a consensus. Since Serbian and Croatian editors may be biased, I think it would be the best that the closure is done by an uninvolved editor who doesn't have any feeling one way or another.194.152.253.41 (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I will just note that some editors keep closing the request on the talk page. I don't want to go to edit warring over there so I won't revert them. I explained to them that an closure request is pending here. I even made a report for edit warring which didn't prevent them, so don't be surprised to find a closed request on the talk page.194.152.253.43 (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I will also like to state that we have a RS, and no sources that oppose it. There is no reason it shouldn't enter the article. 194.152.253.40 (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done - MrX 17:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song)

 * RM has been open for two weeks already, which is longer than the typical week such discussions last. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done Jenks24 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)
Has been given two full listing periods and discussion has slowed considerably, time for a close. Jenks24 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret 22:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done by - MrX 17:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Carly Fiorina
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Carly Fiorina ? There has been no discussion since 3 October 2015. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  18:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy ? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  19:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  18:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bombay Riots
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bombay Riots ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done --Errant (chat!) 08:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Point_Break

 * No new comments since October 10.  Calidum   19:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done by Cúchullain. Jenks24 (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Faith healing/Archive 3
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Faith healing/Archive 3 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  04:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Review of this close on WP:AN please do not archive. AlbinoFerret  15:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Close Review was closed Endorse Administrators%27_noticeboard AlbinoFerret  18:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed tl and Do not archive until per above, so this can be archived again. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ancient Grains
Hi, kindly close AfD Articles for deletion/Ancient Grains, nominator has withdrawn its nomination. Article is nominated for DYK so it will be better to close it quickly so that AfD template will get removed from article main space and DYK can be ready to get reviewed. Thank you. -- Human 3015   TALK   10:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * fails WP:SK, which states that no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. As there is a redirect !vote, then this will have to run it's course. Mdann52 (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 21:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy
WP:SNOW close. Requester clearly states motivation as WP:AFD by proxy. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * AlbinoFerret 18:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done--Aervanath (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability

 * This has been running for three weeks and there have been no new comments in at least a week. The closing admin should also post the result at Talk:Manhattan Municipal Building (since that is where the dispute first arose). Thanks, Neutralitytalk 01:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done--Aervanath (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done--Aervanath (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

4 CFDs
The above four CFDs are the last remaining from this summer. Could somebody close them? Armbrust The Homunculus 21:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 9
 * Yes check.svg Done No consensus. Samsara 15:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 31
 * Yes check.svg Done--Aervanath (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 20
 * Yes check.svg Done--Aervanath (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 29
 * Yes check.svg Done--Aervanath (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * All done --Aervanath (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People
Could an uninvolved, experienced editor please assess consensus for each of the proposals at this RfC and close the discussion? Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Archive 6. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done--Aervanath (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Trypophobia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trypophobia ? Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 1 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ganesh Chaturthi
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ganesh Chaturthi ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain? You linked to diff showing an RfC template being removed and linked to a discussion that is not an RfC. - MrX 16:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant Talk:Ganesh Chaturthi, not Talk:Ganesh Chaturthi. Thank you for the correction. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User names
There are two open, semi-related discussions that have long since stop producing anything resembling intelligent debate. Both could be closed fairly easily by an uninvolved admin or whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One of them is now closed. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The other is done as well.--Aervanath (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Volkswagen emissions scandal
Consensus must have reached. It needs accurate closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Discussion ended on the 12 October, so I closed it. AlbinoFerret  00:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an Admin please close this. It is a little long, but should be an easy close. Discussion stopped the 19th, only new posts are asking for a close, and its seven days past its start. AlbinoFerret 03:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅--Aervanath (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Peter Dinklage
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peter Dinklage ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  18:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Edward J. Ruppelt
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Edward J. Ruppelt ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  18:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Velliscig
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Velliscig ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States ? An editor wrote at the top of the discussion: "Note: this section is being returned from the archive pending RFC closure, and because it is referred to by section wikilinks in the sections below." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅--Aervanath (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Firefox for mobile
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Firefox for mobile ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Agnes de Mille
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Agnes de Mille ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Wardrobe malfunction
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Wardrobe malfunction ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:California wildfires
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:California wildfires ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Citizens United v. FEC
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 01:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Current disaster
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Current disaster ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 24
A NAC was recently vacated at DRV and a re-close by an uninvolved admin is needed. Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅--Aervanath (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  15:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? Please consider the closed RfCs Village pump (proposals)/Archive 122 and Bot requests/Archive 64 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Now archived at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 127. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Moved back to main page to close, the orignal link works for going to it. AlbinoFerret  16:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Eliot Higgins
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eliot Higgins ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eliot Higgins?. Thanks, Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  22:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  22:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 98
No new comments since October 3. One user suggested the RFC wasn't publicized enough, so notices were posted on the talk pages of relevant articles on October 4 (here, here, and here) but no additional comments were received. Bmf 051 (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Moved from Archive to close, can now be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football AlbinoFerret  14:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Moved from Archive to close, can now be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football AlbinoFerret  14:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Palestine
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Palestine ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  00:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Carly Fiorina
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Carly Fiorina ? The last comment was made 13 October 2015. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  00:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United Nations
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:United Nations ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  17:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Turks in Bulgaria
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Turks in Bulgaria ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ sst✈discuss 17:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC) (non-admin)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? This was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  19:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2015 September
This move review is well over the listing period, and these have a tendency to linger in the backlog.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The review was opened September 27 and the discussion has basically stalled.  Calidum   23:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (I've updated navboxes and moved related articles, though there may be some incoming links to Football at the 1956 Summer Olympics which will need redirecting once the navbox templates have refreshed.)  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Eshhar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eshhar ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 *  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  21:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Liberland
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Liberland ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  16:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Willie and Joe
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the discussion? Thanks. --Cavarrone 17:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ I put an archive box around it, in the end a source was found and wording that appears to be stable. AlbinoFerret  16:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Cite doi
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Cite doi ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That discussion has been closed. If needed, the person closing the discussion should sum up the consensus, or simply reopen the discussion if they are not able to.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  19:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrapping a discussion between Archive top and Archive bottom isn't the same as closure. A formal closing statement of the discussion is needed per Template talk:Cite doi. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The user who put a box around it had been part of the discussion and felt someone who hadn't argued for a specific side should write the formal closing statement. /Julle (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Putting a box on it ≠ writing a closing statement.
 * Unlike most RFCs on this page, there is an actual request on the page for a formal closing statement by an uninvolved editor. Although I thought that the outcome was pretty clear, the request says that the question has been repeatedly contentious in the past, so it would probably be best to have an admin handle this.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am probably the most active NAC here and I cant do it, so odds are an admin will close it. AlbinoFerret  18:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅--Aervanath (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard ? The discussion has been open for four days. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Now archived at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive275. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I had seen this sooner I might have done a formal close, but the topic ban being appealed was not lifted at the time of the discussion and is set to expire in three days, so it's more or less moot at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , is this okay with you, or would you still like a formal close? Cunard (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ The consensus was clearly in favor of lifting the topic ban, and I don't think continuing unsupported sanctions is unjust no matter how little time remains.--Aervanath (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Requests for closure on Palestine-related discussions
Asking for an uninvolved editor and/or Admin to close the following related discussions: Talk:Levant and Talk:Palestinian National Authority -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret 22:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️, for purposes of having this section archived. I feel like I need a not needed template, as the participants have pretty well summed up their own conclusions in a reasonable manner, and any additional closure would be moot.--Aervanath (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:State of Palestine
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:State of Palestine ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Again, a discussion that doesn't really need a closure. The participants had already started collaborating on the restructuring of the articles before the RFC was even finished, and there doesn't seem to be anything for a closer to actually resolve.--Aervanath (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:PlayStation 4 system software
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:PlayStation 4 system software ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI
An uninvolved user is requested to put a stop to this back-and-forth nonsense.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 04:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Now at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive903 Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The thread appears to have died a natural death four days ago, s formal closing statement does not seem needed or helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm marking the initiated tag with "done=yes" so that this section will be archived. I concur that this does not need a formal closure.--Aervanath (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Frank_Gaffney
Would an experienced uninvolved editor assess the consensus at this discussion? LavaBaron (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 123
I think there is a consensus. George Ho (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret 00:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done Armbrust The Homunculus 08:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/John Hinds (doctor)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Articles_for_deletion/John_Hinds_%28doctor%29 ? Thanks.Rhumidian (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tulane Green Wave football statistical leaders
WP:SNOW on one instances of a well-established type of article with 53 standardized intances (Category:Lists of college football statistical leaders by team) as supported by WikiProject College football. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done sst✈discuss 06:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:John Anglin
I need an accurate closing rationale. --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret 03:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done --Errant (chat!) 15:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

BLPN
Closure requested here. Initiator of discussion is the article subject and is forum shopping as consensus was already reached a few days ago here and the discussion closed. Initiator of discussion is employing WP:IDHT as well. He has said he would stop continuing the discussion, but continues on. My feeling (and the feeling of the other editors at the article talk page) is that the article subject is attempting to use the article and the content he wants added as self-promotion. Content requested to be added by this individual is in regard to his latest book. Policy has been pointed out to him repeatedly. Please help with this as it is beyond tedious at this point. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 21:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , at least one comment was made today. AlbinoFerret  14:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * not done There seems no need to close it, and a request to do so here is a little tendentious (especially given that this was ironically arguably also forum-shopped at AN/I). Let the discussion run its course and be archived as normal. --Errant (chat!) 15:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904
I don't think the discussion will develop further, and the user in question takes long breaks between their WP:TEND activities. So I'm putting in a request for closure. --Jobrot (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * not done Unfortunately there isn't any good consensus there due to lack of contribution. It will probably have to be resolved via a further discussion. --Errant (chat!) 15:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC
The 30 days will run on this one in less than an hour. There's been very little activity the past week. This one looks like it will be more fun to close than usual, and I wish I could help, but I can't until something happens to push the rate of promotions up. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done Now closed by ErrantX. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:David Cameron
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:David Cameron ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done I closed the RfC. Honestly though, a 5-0 RfC probably doesn't require "an experienced editor" to close it ... Banedon (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting
Obvious consensus, but I think I need someone uninvolved. George Ho (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done Says resolved, boxed it up, if it needs closed they can leave a message on my talk page. AlbinoFerret  20:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kim Kardashian
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kim Kardashian ? The opening poster wrote: "Should 'Kim K Superstar' be included in the filmography of this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  21:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  21:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Elan Carr
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elan Carr ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  21:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Roger Waters
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Roger Waters ? The opening poster wrote: "Should this article include a section, 'Accusations of anti-Semitism'?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  21:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Caitlyn Jenner
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner ? An editor wrote: "Admin ping Can we have some kind of result, any result, for this RfC, please? It's been more than a month since it went up and we want to go home some time this year. :-)" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * close Mdann52 (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Volleyball at the 2014 Asian Games
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Volleyball at the 2014 Asian Games ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done 4 days ago. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 16:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism/RfC for a trial unbundling of blocking
This RFC appears to be DOA. I suggested an early close four days ago, and nobody has objected, or said anything at all, since then. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There were a couple contributions today, albeit in the oppose camp. I see no harm in letting it run the full 30 days.--Aervanath (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect that was a result of being listed here, one more comment that day and nothing since. Of course you're right that there's no harm in leaving it open, but conversely there is no harm in closing it now as the supporters and indeed even the proposers of this seem to have walked away. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record this was done by Mdann52 several days ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography ? Please consider the closed RfC Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Archive 4 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  23:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bebe Rexha
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bebe Rexha ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  23:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Leschi (fireboat)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Leschi (fireboat) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  23:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Trưng Sisters
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Trưng Sisters ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  00:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2015 October 17
Would an admin assess the consensus at Files for deletion/2015 October 17 ? Please consider the related discussion Deletion review/Log/2015 October 19 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are related discussions that should also be closed:
 * Files for deletion/2015 October 4
 * Files for deletion/2015 October 9
 * Files for deletion/2015 October 13
 * Files for deletion/2015 October 13
 * Files for deletion/2015 October 13
 * Files for deletion/2015 October 16
 * For consistency, these probably should all be closed by the same admin. Deletion review/Log/2015 October 19 concluded: "The problem is that the policy is unclear enough the any closer is pretty much going to have to make it up on the hoof and this discussion has not really moved that position forward. Usually, we would relist if the outcome isn't clear or feels unsatisfactory but I can't see that will improve matters either as the next close will have the same problem. I'm therefore closing this as no action but suggest to the nominator that they open an RFC to garner wider input into what our policy should be for keep local images" Cunard (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2015 October 2
Would an admin assess the consensus at ? Deletion review/Log/2015 October 19 might be a related discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Classification of Products by Activity
It seems that all the regular admins at RfD have participated in this RfD discussion, so we need a fresh pair of eyes to close it. Deryck C. 22:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015 October 26
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Britain
Can an experienced editor assess the consensus at the above link and close the discussion? Thanks. Banedon (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since an important point at issue is to what degree consensus of opinion can override WP:RS, I suggest that we need an experienced, disinterested and uninvolved admin to close this RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Nancy Cruickshank
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nancy Cruickshank ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done Armbrust The Homunculus 11:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Amy Tran
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Amy Tran ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Category talk:Establishments
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Establishments ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  13:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Massacre of the Acqui Division
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Massacre of the Acqui Division ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Self-creation cosmology
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Self-creation cosmology ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done Armbrust The Homunculus 11:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cold War II
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cold War II ? See the subsection Talk:Cold War II. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done Armbrust The Homunculus 12:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Redirect
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Redirect ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2015 November 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2015 November 2 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by Timotheus Canens. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2015 October 29
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2015 October 29 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by Lankiveil. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by, and now archived at IncidentArchive905. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by, and now archived in IncidentArchive905. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Blue Army (Poland)
Request to close out the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) RfC, it has expired and we do have a clear consensus established on the issue. --E-960 (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, just a friendly FYI… still requesting to close out this RfC. --E-960 (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC
Although only open since 15 November, there has been large participation, and the consensus seems clear. However a prompt formal close is needed for the arbcom elections, already open, to proceed validly. DES (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done Mz7 (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hello (Adele song)
Would an experienced uninvolved editor assess the consensus at this RfC. Gizmocorot (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret 18:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Rudolf Hess
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rudolf Hess ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Deaths in 2015
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deaths in 2015 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  19:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing ? The opening poster wrote: "Should the result of RfC on 'sister article' (Palestinian stone-throwing) be applied to this article as well? (Result:There is a consensus against inclusion of incidents without their own Wikipedia articles)" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:African Americans
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:African Americans ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:War of 1812
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:War of 1812 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done --GRuban (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  18:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2015 Brussels lockdown
Please assess as a possible speedy. Legacypac (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This doesn't meet any of the criteria for a speedy keep and there are enough people !voting to merge or delete that I don't think it should be closed early. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 17:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Yugoslavia
Can this RfC be closed. The consensus has been established and the article is already altered accordingly. However ,a formal closure would help to split this RfC with other that are unrelated. 94.28.177.61 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - The RfC has been open for less than two weeks and editors are still commenting. - MrX 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Yugoslavia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 07:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting
If there is consensus, it needs accurate closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting ? There has been no discussion since 17 October 2015. As noted at Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting/Archive 4, the discussion was prematurely archived by the bot and later restored from the archive to the talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, someone voted on the previous day, 26 October 2015. George Ho (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I took a look at it, and it looks no consensus at this point, perhaps a few more days will get some more responses. AlbinoFerret  22:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Five days passed, AlbinoFerret. Want to take a request? --George Ho (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Cancelled process mini.svg Request withdrawn. The image is reinserted with a caption linking to ongoing FFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * per withdrawn request above. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 08:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , here is my proposed summary of the outcome: "As noted here, has re-inserted the image into the article. The image is currently being discussed at Files for discussion/2015 November 26." However, my summary doesn't include an assessment of the discussion's consensus. At Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting, I don't see a consensus to restore the image while the RfC (and now FfD) are ongoing. I think an assessment of the consensus would still be useful to determine whether the image should remain in the article while the FfD is taking place. Cunard (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. I'll see if I can check the discussion on Sunday; no time tonight. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 08:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting, I'm not convinced there was enough substantive participation. Basically, there are two editors disagreeing with each other and two others voting without a valid rationale, so it's basically no consensus as you say.  I'll make a close shortly, thank you for your summary statement above.  <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 07:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that assessment matches 's earlier review concluding "it looks no consensus at this point". Thank you, AlbinoFerret and, for the review and upcoming close! Cunard (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 07:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

===Talk:Papineau (electoral district)=== Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Papineau (electoral district) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * done. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 08:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
Would an experienced uninvolved editor assess the consensus at this RSN discussion? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Now archived at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 198. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 07:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of military occupations
Need a consensus to be assessed please.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of military occupations ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:C/1980 E1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:C/1980 E1 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Domestic violence
The WP:RfC tag recently expired. This is a contentious discussion, and an impartial administrator is needed to close it (preferably the entire "Domestic violence affects both genders and children" section it is a part of). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Close by Alsee. Sam Walton (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Beersheva bus station shooting
Would an admin please review the consensus and close this AfD? A non-admin closure was objected to and reverted a few days ago, since this is a contentious topic. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mount Sinai Beth Israel
Easy WP:SNOW case. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 21:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done Armbrust The Homunculus 16:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Isis
Should be speedily closed per WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:SNOW. The only rationale provided is demonstrably and self-evidently false. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done Armbrust The Homunculus 16:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Carla van Raay
This AfD has gone well over the 7 day relist. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done sst✈(discuss) 18:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Stone Roses (album)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Stone Roses (album) ? See the subsection Talk:The Stone Roses (album). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 12:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Full Service (book)
Very little participation excluding involved parties. Need accurate rationale. --George Ho (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Relisted Nov 16th. AlbinoFerret  23:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done Policy based close.
 * Any RFC participant is free to create a new and gloriously-NPOV biography on the "strikingly handsome, well-endowed and personable" author of the book. Any RFC participant is free to nominate that new article for deletion. Alsee (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People
EEng (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done Consensus against longevity succession boxes. Note: The listing here incorrectly says "Initiated 12 days ago". History shows the RFC was opened exactly a month ago, October 29. Alsee (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Denali
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Denali ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done - consensus was no moratorium.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Patrick Judge
Please disposition Articles for deletion/Patrick Judge, whose first relisting was more than one week ago. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done - Consensus was to redirect.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Anna Politkovskaya
Request formal close. NE Ent 12:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done (in voluminous detail; may God have mercy upon my soul). --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Request formal close. czar 13:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Superpower
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Superpower ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  03:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  01:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2015 Ankara bombings
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2015 Ankara bombings ? See the subsection Talk:2015 Ankara bombings. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  03:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 11
Consensus seems clear here, and it's the last item open on the day's discussion page. I suspect a closure hasn't happened because of the number of redirects involved. You make the ruling and I'll be happy to help with the legwork if you ping me. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . sst✈(discuss) 13:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
I need an accurate rationale. --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC) ===Village pump (policy)/Archive 123 and Village pump (policy)/Archive 124 === resolved Admin closure requested. These two RfCs went up on October 11. They address Wikipedia's policy toward transgender individuals, specifically which pronouns and names to use when discussing parts of their lives before their gender transition. The first addresses whether Wikipedia's current policy on biographical articles, MOS:IDENTITY, should be changed and if so to what. The second addresses whether MOS:IDENTITY should be amended to include a rule about how to refer to trans individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subject. It's been a few days since our last new comment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  03:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Both were . AlbinoFerret  14:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussions are still ongoing. This should be left open until they peter out. The issue comes up again and again, so this should run its course until exhausted, so we can be certain the discussion is as thorough as it practically can be this time. I'd advocate giving it at least a few more days, if not a week. It's more important to get a solid consensus this time than an expedient one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It had been a couple days since our last new comment when I first posted this request and it has once again been a couple days since our last comment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. Last post was 20 Nov., so it appears to have finally wound down.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, at the time I wrote that request, the last post had been on November 13. I'd add that even though a few people have commented since (one of them to ask when the thread would be closed), the threads have been open long enough to get a statistically significant group of contributors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest closing as no consensus for now. There are too many alternatives proposed and no clear consensus. We're still waiting for societal norms to settle. The American Society of Copy Editors is struggling with this, and there may be guidance in the next edition of the Associated Press Style Guide. John Nagle (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * NB: in the first RFC, option 4 was on a different question and possibly shouldn't have been rolled into the RFC; if anyone plans to judge it, note that the format of the RFC was geared to expressing support for the option you preferred, not expressing opposition to other options (though a handful of people did express opposition to things, either in boldface or not, the latter being how I expressed wariness of option 4); only a minority of voters supported option 4. -sche (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which was why we didn't include it in any of the original drafts. Also, note that option 3 is just a placeholder.  We're really dealing with three options, 1, 2, and 5 for the first proposal, and in the second, no one gave OTTHER(2) the time of day. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinging all who have posted to this section: It has been a full month since closure (by an administrator) of these two RfC's was requested. Since that time the RfC's have drawn only two or three more comments. I believe it is unlikely that there will be many (if any) additional comments posted to them. And, because of how long they've been listed for administrator closure with no result, I believe it is unlikely that we will get an administrator to perform the closures. Because of the importance of the subject matter of these RfC's, I believe they should not be allowed to linger undecided indefinitely. Therefore I propose that, if no administrator has acted by the middle of this month (Dec. 15, 2015), the closure request be changed to request closure by any experienced and uninvolved editor. Richard27182 (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The potential-to-likely problem with that is a lack of admin closure will likely not actually close the matter, but just lead to another round of rehash debate in 1-4 months. Unless it closes as "no consensus", which will also lead to another rehash. If something other than "no consensus" might plausibly come out of it, then a three-admin closure panel, as was used in the last Hillary [Rodham] Clinton RM, would be the best, as it would virtually eliminate anyone's ability to supervote. A no-consensus closure would probably be the most likely result, however, because the options available to !vote on were skewed and limiting, with too many people (myself included) only able to partially support something, with caveats. I.e., even if it closes with a consensus for something, it'll simply lead to another debate anyway, to resolve the matters that were not properly addressed this time. It should be re-done in a more open way, taking into account the criticisms of the last iteration of this debate. For one thing, the pronouns issue needs to be split out as a separate matter (either a separate RfC, or as options that reflect different approaches to the pronouns issue within a broader RfC).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * close one as no-consensus, the other with a (fairly!) clear consensus. Mdann52 (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  16:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Franjo Tuđman
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Franjo Tuđman ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  17:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Malala Yousafzai
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Malala Yousafzai ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  17:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Socialism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Socialism ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  17:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bill Cosby
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bill Cosby ? See the subsection Talk:Bill Cosby. Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 3 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now archived at Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 3 Armbrust The Homunculus 11:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done --GRuban (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items
Uninvolved administrator needed, though recent Sprint Cup was featured in the News. George Ho (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 14:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ceremonial pole
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ceremonial pole ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  18:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  18:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2015
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2015 ? See the subsection Talk:2015. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  19:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sofia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sofia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sex offender registries in the United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sex offender registries in the United States ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  19:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gun laws in the United States by state
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun laws in the United States by state ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done Improperly formed RFC with no specific question, boxed it up. AlbinoFerret  23:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Intifada
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Intifada ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  23:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Pisco sour
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pisco sour ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done Armbrust The Homunculus 01:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2015 November 28
Would an admin assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2015 November 28 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Garrett Swasey
Please disposition Articles for deletion/Garrett Swasey. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)