Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 20

Talk:Genesis P-Orridge
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genesis P-Orridge ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  16:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kuwait Airways
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kuwait Airways ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Economic history
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Economic history ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done--meaning, in this case, there really is nothing to close: the proposal was already a bit unclear, and there are some suggestions to tweak the article. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Liberland
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Liberland ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Azov Battalion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Azov Battalion ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  17:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq_coalition
Would an uninvolved admin assess this merger proposal for closure? It's been open about a month and a half. LavaBaron (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * not done 2 people is not enough for a consensus. More participation is required. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nableezy
Can somebody please close this? Been open since November 27.  nableezy  - 22:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done Sure thing, . Drmies (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Legend of Zelda (1986 video game)
Could an experienced discussion closer please close Talk:The Legend of Zelda (1986 video game)? There have been no new comments added to this discussion since late November. Steel1943 (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – Steel1943  (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done by Aervanath. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Legend of Zelda (1986 video game)
Could an experienced discussion closer please close Talk:The Legend of Zelda (1986 video game)? There have been no new comments added to this discussion since late November. Steel1943 (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – Steel1943  (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done by Aervanath. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Muammar Gaddafi
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Muammar Gaddafi ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  18:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:War in Donbass
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:War in Donbass ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  19:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:McLaren MP4-30
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:McLaren MP4-30 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  19:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done Compromise was reached on talk page, no formal close needed. NE Ent 23:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Zombie
This has been open since January. Strikes me as an obvious close but best be someone uninvolved to keep it all above board as somewhat controversial. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done NE Ent 23:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gary Cooper
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Gary Cooper ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done NE Ent 23:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive232
"Closure by admin requested for WP:BLPN discussion BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When this is closed it definitely needs to be closed in tandem with Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16. I've read through a lot this morning and have no idea what to do; there's no strong consensus to do anything (i.e. there is zero agreement on what wording to actually use) but there is pretty strong consensus that the current situation is not sufficient for BLP. There are a lot of other factors at play here too; like how some BLP's are badly categorised anyway (which the rename may have compounded). My feeling is that we're I to close this I'd do a no-consensu o what to call the category, delete the cat under WP:BLPCAT and open a neutral RFC incorporating all of the main suggestions for category naming and inclusion criteria, to resolve this in detail. --Errant (chat!) 10:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning that parallel discussion. In addition to the immediate issue, there was also a procedural disagreement about whether WP:BLPCAT claims should be decided as a BLP Incident or as a Category for Discussion. I don't know if there is an answer to that jurisdictional question but it may matter since the the two conversations had starkly different consensuses. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * IIRC, policy-based decisions trump "content decisions" and suggest that the CfD was the latter, and the BLP/N decision the former. Collect (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A bot changed the heading and text of this closure request to point to Archive231. That is the wrong URL. In fact the discussion is currently the first item at WP:BLPN. This confusion is my fault. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * the links. It looks like someone de-archived it... although it's also in the archive. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Requesting specifically admin closure on this contentious discussion, given the range of BLP articles involved (E.g.; Václav Klaus, Bill O'Reilly William Kininmonth, Pat Sajak). The last post was 9 days ago. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I'd be happy to close this having taken several goes at reading through - but actually I'd prefer another admin or two to be involved & help discuss the close. As far as I can see there is consensus that there is a problem but no actual viable solution agreed on (even the status quo). My close would be simply to remove the category to reset us back to zero and to draft/open a neutrally worded RFC at a sensible location to resolve this once and for all. Whatever it is closed as this will be contentious, and a major task, so I'd prefer assisstance. --Errant (chat!) 15:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done -- slakr \ talk / 02:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 55
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 55 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * from what I can tell; Articles for deletion/Owen 'Alik Shahadah resulted in a delete of the page in question. -- slakr \ talk / 03:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Essential Brands Group Australasia
This has gone well over the 7 days. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_11
Month-old TfD that is a reboot of one I previously closed; need someone uninvolved to take a look. Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:User_pages
Seeking a close of this RFC. With the canvassing that has taken place it's impossible to determine the consensus. There's no need in further wasting the communities time or the members who have signed up to the Request for feedback service.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret 03:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was opened on November 12 but it should have been closed on November the 14th when it became clear that editors where being sent email correspondence to advertise the RFC . In addition to this type of inappropriate canvassing they also advertised to the Wikiproject France in the aftermath of the Paris attacks seeking to manipulate any emotional sympathies for the France that it members may have . Both types of Canvassing that were employed have poisoned the well. The consensus making process has been compromised and it should be closed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64
Uninvolved administrator needed. --George Ho (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost no definite opinions have been offered, and George Ho relisted this on December 2, so closing this is very premature. --GRuban (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - The discussion is archived by the bot. George Ho (talk) 05:21, 15 December 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) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, this RfC was withdrawn in favor of another RfC which is still ongoing. Sunrise (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  17:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:New York Public Library
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New York Public Library ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Izno (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Frogman
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frogman ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  23:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Denial_of_the_Holodomor
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus here? Be warned: the discussion is somewhat long and covers various issues. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 16:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  23:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipediocracy
This RfC has run for a month and failed to demonstrate consensus for a change to the stable wording in the article. Could someone please close it? Thank you. —  Scott  •  talk  17:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  00:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games
Prefer a close from outside the Video games WikiProject regulars. czar 15:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  00:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Security review RfC
Following two compromised administrator accounts, I initiated an RfC on some changes to En.WP's password rules. The discussion has all but ended, would a kind admin look over and close it please, so I can get back to the WMF on what we want implemented on En.WP only. WormTT(talk) 08:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done most of this, but there are a few sections I was too involved with and therefore can't close. This is almost done and would require just a few minutes for an uninvolved admin to complete it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done AFAICT, this has now been fully closed by Beeblebrox and others... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic_cigarette
Would an experienced editor please close this merge discussion? Its been open 7 days and no responses for 4 days. Consensus should be easy to see, but outside closing is preferred to eliminate future issues. Please see for an earlier discussion on the topic that prompted the merge discussion. AlbinoFerret 07:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done by  AlbinoFerret  23:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by In actu. Sam Walton (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by In actu. Sam Walton (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cold War II
I need an accurate closing rationale. --George Ho (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
Discussion had turned stale. A clear consensus exists. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Been discussed for almost two weeks now and I think there's a clear consensus to add the criteria as a new example of a G6 to CSD (no need to renumber the criteria or anything too controversial). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ NE Ent 13:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame
Needs assessment by uninvolved admin.    08:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Jenks24. Sam Walton (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Busted (band)
There has been a discussion as to whether 'Busted' should treated as a singular or plural noun throughout the article's introduction. Thank you. ~Peter Dzubay (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ NE Ent 13:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Caliphate
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Caliphate ? See the subsection Template talk:Caliphate, where the opening poster wrote: "Should the Template just list a select number of caliphates (of which there are 7 as can be seen on the template) or should it include every caliphate as can be seen in the article Caliphate (of which there are ~10 as can be seen in history)." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_military_occupations
Need an uninvolved party to access the consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  18:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
Request formal, uninvolved, administrator close because the article is a biography of a living person, and is subject to discretionary sanctions Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change, and although the consensus seems sufficiently clear that a formal close might not be necessary, two involved editors have argued for variant closures. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  19:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Possibly_unfree_files/2015_December_8
Please disposition this discussion about a mugshot open since December 8. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done DMacks (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
Open since September 27, requesting formal closure czar  14:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  15:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 8
Discussion has been open since 8 November 2015.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 05:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done The Bushranger One ping only 02:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done following rough on the link RFC, a new RFC has been started and is not ready for close yet. NE Ent 00:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed Not done template. There is no open RfC at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * is there another RFC, and does the one now on the page need closing? AlbinoFerret  17:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I must have posted in the wrong section (here on ANRFC), sorry. Unfortunately don't remember which RFC I was looking at. NE Ent 19:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Done AlbinoFerret  21:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_territorial_disputes
Requesting a closure of this merge discussion. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  21:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette
Would an experienced editor close this one. It should be easy and quick. . There is a second RFC on the same topic started the same day, but split off 4 days later that adds questions Talk:Electronic cigarette. It was started by a now topic banned editor. This should be another easy quick close. AlbinoFerret 13:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Esquivalience t 01:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

=== Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster#RfC: Should we use the terminology "ongoing" to describe Fukushima? === Although the consensus seems to be quite clear, it would be probably better to have a formal closure. Beagel (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  19:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2015 Los Angeles Unified School District closure‎
Please disposition Articles for deletion/2015 Los Angeles Unified School District closure‎. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done by MBisanz. Sunrise (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Heavy metal music
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Heavy metal music ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

✅--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jedediah Smith
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jedediah Smith ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this needs a formal closure. Sam Walton (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I withdraw this closure request. Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Nicholas A. Christakis
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nicholas A. Christakis ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion appears to have been productive and is slowly ongoing so I don't think it warrants an official close. Sam Walton (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I withdraw this closure request. Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Done--GRuban (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The RFC was reposted Nov 17th. AlbinoFerret  23:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Martina Anderson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Martina Anderson ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done Alsee (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Purple drank
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Purple drank ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Consensus and early close endorsed by sole supporter. Alsee (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Caste system in India
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Caste system in India ? See the subsection Talk:Caste system in India. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done --Izno (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Alsee (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Watchdog.org
There are actually three virtually identical discussions that have failed consensus and should be closed:

Thank you!-- Paid Editor, but not on the Watchdog.org topic -- User:009o9Talk 19:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk:Watchdog.org
 * Talk:Watchdog.org
 * Talk:Watchdog.org
 * These three sections are article talk page discussions preliminary to an RfC, currently open. These discussions do not require a close and do not require a formal close. Kindly decline this request and archive. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ I skimmed the situation, and per Hugh's comment above these weren't RFC's. There appears to be no reason to apply closes. Alsee (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Marco Rubio
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marco Rubio ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done by AlbinoFerret Alsee (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Carly Fiorina
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Carly Fiorina ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Alsee (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Fields Medal/Archive1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Fields Medal/Archive1 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done proposer cited that consensus was against proposal and planed to leave images out, boxed it up. AlbinoFerret  02:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jesus ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  03:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kim Jong-un
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kim Jong-un ? Please consider the unclosed 2012 RfC Talk:Kim Jong-un/Archive 2 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Schizoaffective disorder
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Schizoaffective disorder ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Edward VIII
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Edward VIII ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  15:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Atlantis
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Atlantis ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  16:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ by  AlbinoFerret  18:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn I marked that closed when I did it. Aha! There were two entries on this page, pointing to one RfC discussion! --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Monarchy of Canada
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Monarchy of Canada ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hinduism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hinduism ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Unreferenced
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Unreferenced? See the subsection Template talk:Unreferenced ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  18:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Community portal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Community portal ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  19:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox language
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox language ? Thanks --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 10:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  19:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904
Would an experienced editor admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this is on an admin board, shouldn’t an admin close it? AlbinoFerret  18:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret, you are correct. I have fixed my post, thank you. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 08:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done Kharkiv07  ( T ) 05:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)
Would an uninvolved admin please close this. Due to the topic under discussion an admin closure is preferred. A very involved editor (CFCF) has tried to close it. The opening question was not signed so the bot has no refrence of when to removed the RFC header, but it has been open over 30 days. AlbinoFerret 22:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Closed by Nyttend. AlbinoFerret  15:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Iranian peoples
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iranian peoples ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  02:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)/Archive 2 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

No original research/Noticeboard
This discussion is happening on three pages at once (NORNB, Help talk:IPA for English where it actually belongs, plus another at MOS:PRONUNCIATION). This NORNB tine of the fork has turned into another couple-of-editors-textwalling-against-each-other thing, and is actually in the wrong venue. WP:NOR pertains to the information content, not how WP presentationally wraps it. I.e., the actual content that is subject to core content policies is what the pronunciation(s) is/are. WP has multiple pronunciation transcription markup systems, and like our citation styles, this is WP-original metadata, not subject to WP:CORE. One of them is based on (mostly American) dictionary-style pronunciation keys: [pro-NUN-see-ay-shun]; the other loosely based on IPA. Both are synthetic and are internal matters, and not subject to WP:NOR / WP:V. As long as the pronunciation that emerges in the reader's mind is verifiable, it does not matter what markup wrapper we convey it with. Both of our extant pronunciation guide systems could be replaced tomorrow with something entirely different and even more arbitrary (even one consisting of WP-invented orthography, though that would not of course be practical). While I agree that OP has a point – it's not wise for us to use a WP-modified version of IPA that conflicts with IPA norms that a linguist would expect – that's not an NOR matter, but a matter for consensus discussion at the IPA for English talk page. The discussion should remain open until naturally resolved or a closure request is made, while the one at NORNB should be closed as no consensus / off topic. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now both sides of the dispute have conceded that this won't be resolved as a WP:NOR issue, so this fork of the discussion has no reason to stay open at WP:NORNB, and can be centralized, finally, at Help talk:IPA for English, which is collectively trying to actually resolve it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now archivec at No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 35. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 09:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an administrator assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard and administer news of a topic ban to the user in question if that is what consensus calls for? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive276 ? See the subsection Administrators' noticeboard/Archive276. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * done. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 10:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Political correctness
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Political correctness ? See Talk:Political correctness. The opening poster wrote: "Is political correctness a concept of not offending — especially the marginalized — in a community or is it primarily pejorative?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done By S Marshall.  Sandstein   11:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 28
Hello, I originally initiated a discussion on the renaming of Category:Academic pressure in East Asian cultures a few weeks back. I can see that the discussion appears to support a renaming of the category. I am an IP user so I do not have the power to close this discussion or rename it. I initially opened the discussion under the IP address of, you will notice that has changed today because my IP address always changes, I am still the same person I just have a different IP address. Could someone please close the discussion and rename the category please? It has completed its 7 day discussion as it finished last Saturday, thank you. (120.144.180.158 (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Hello, for those of you who might be sceptical of whether I am the original user who opened the discussion mentioned above,, I can guarantee you I am the same person my IP address often changes so that's why I look like another user. I even mentioned this to another user on their talk page when I was using that IP address - User talk:Smileguy91. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew I am the same user, just a different IP address. (137.147.151.25 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC))

close – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:In the news
Should be closed as soon as possible. George Ho (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret 20:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done Discussion not found.  Sandstein   11:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Eagles of Death Metal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eagles of Death Metal ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * close Dragons flight (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Royal Households of the United Kingdom
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Royal Households of the United Kingdom ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done  Sandstein   10:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups
RfC about deprecating the use of image galleries in infoboxes of ethnic group articles has been open for a month. Current consensus is that it has drawn enough participation to allow for a reasonably clear closure now. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done  Sandstein   10:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack/Archive 5
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack/Archive 5 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done moved from archive to close. Talk:2015_San_Bernardino_attack AlbinoFerret  02:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC
<div class="boilerplate discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; overflow:auto; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * Please keep the discussion going over here so people don't have to bounce all over trying to keep track of it. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Was supposed to close on 17th, but it's still open now. Doesn't really need a formal closure but it's two days over and no one's cared. Needs to be closed ASAP. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  04:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: RfC was officially opened on Nov. 29 – with the "false" 24-hour close (and the objections to that), it is now advisable that it stay open through at least Dec. 30. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't close this early, as the earlier close was controversial. However it will need a forma close. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but shouldn't it be closed by an uninvolved editor? Although, it's a site-wide affecting RfC, any competent editor can close it, no? -- QEDK  ♠  T  ♥  C  17:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As far reaching as this RFC is, as a NAC, I wouldnt touch it alone. I think a team closure would be best since its so big and what it seeks to accomplish, just to make sure we get it right. AlbinoFerret  19:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the majority going to be and what about the discretionary range? -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  10:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Repeating: we've now reached the 30 day point. Any takers? - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this should be closed by a team including at least one Bureaucrat and one Administrator, and have posted a request at Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, advise waiting until Dec. 30 to close for the reason I alluded to above... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Breakfast
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Breakfast ? NOTE: This is a FLOW board. There has been zero project activity in 14 months. This is an RFC to request the WMF end the Flow trial on the page. Running the RFC inside Flow was a mess. I've provided a participant summary below for assistance:
 * 6 Support: Alsee Cullen328 BethNaught Doug_Weller Scott Fram
 * 3 Oppose: Ottawahitech Bluerasberry WhatamIdoing
 * 2 Tangential discussion with no attempt to !vote: HHill Quiddity_(WMF)

An affirmative close would authorizes a request to the WMF to end this Flow trial and return (the) conversations to a talk page. All that is needed is a close. I can take care of delivering the request to the appropriate WMF page. Alsee (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will give it a go, since I am not sure of Flow and if templates working there I wont put a tag on it. This should let other closers know I am working on closing it.  AlbinoFerret  09:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  09:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Terry MacAlmon (2nd nomination)
Discussion was relisted but I'm pretty sure there's a clear consensus to keep. Would have withdrawn my nomination earlier but assumed it would be closed as keep regardless. No need for this to be open for another week imo. Sam Walton (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * already done by clpo13. --Izno (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items
There is a consensus. An uninvolved administrator may be needed. --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Sam Walton (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) ? The opening poster wrote: Current language on notability of athletes includes:
 * Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan.

Should this be changed to:


 * Individuals who have competed at any modern Olympic Games and who have either won a medal or won at least one heat or match in their event shall generally be considered notable. Any individual winning a medal at a Paralympics may also be  generally considered to be notable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done (though I'm not sure I agree with the close...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Florida State Road 997
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Florida State Road 997 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done There does not appear to be a discussion to judge. Sam Walton (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As an involved editor in this topic area, I'd like to request that the closer consider the preceding discussion as well, since it discusses the status of the previous RfC close. (AFAIK that close was never appealed at AN, but it probably should have been, as expressed in e.g. this comment by .) <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 03:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Merging duplicate request. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 02:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Would an uninvolved admin please close this RFC. NAC closes on this page are not ideal as it is a contentious area. The closer should also look at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 19, an RFC that lead to the current one and established consensus for change.  AlbinoFerret  00:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. Closed by Nyttend on 31 Dec. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * its a different RFC on the same page. Look for the section titled "RfC Appropriate version for the new clause" on the page, not sure why the link stops at the RFC Nyttend closed. Here is a visual way of showing you they are not the same.
 * This is the RFC Nyttend closed Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
 * Right above it is another unrelated RFC that is the subject of this request. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
 * Not sure why the link is going to Nyttend's close when it should be the section right above it. But they are clearly 2 different RFC's. AlbinoFerret 15:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ by . <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 02:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Fiona Graham
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Fiona Graham  AlbinoFerret  19:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)}}? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  19:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Greco-Italian War
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Greco-Italian War ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  22:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  22:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Madison Young
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Madison Young ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  22:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ed Sheeran
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ed Sheeran ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  22:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Elagabalus
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elagabalus ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  05:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cold War II
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cold War II ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Done--Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Consensus seems clear and discussion has halted, so an administrator is needed to review and close three topic bans, and possibly enforce the topic bans at the following incident report: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I can help however I can. Thank you. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 15:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? See the subsections Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a subsection for Zpeopleheart as well at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Please resolve this quickly because there are still ongoing issues that need to be resolved ASAP. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

In all actuality there are new comments and discussion points have been added since the last archiving for lack of discussion, so discussion may continue. So any admin or other proper person please unarchive the whole deal so we make discuss greely to make it gair for all parties. Thanks. WordSeventeen (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have unarchived the discussion. Cunard (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The only continued "discussion" was you opposing your own ban after removing your comments from my talk page. The discussion is very much stalled, with a pretty clear consensus for all three cases; it can still be closed regardless of whether it is archived or not. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 21:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

sanx, I do note this comment that you placed here. You are though quite incorrect on the policies and protocol at wikipedia. Please do have a fantastic day©! WordSeventeen (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Discussion now at. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 00:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wordseventeen, SanctuaryX is correct. In an issue that has been as tendentious as this one has been, it's a good idea to not suggest that someone is quite incorrect about policies and protocol unless you are going to back it up with diffs and links to specific policies. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done. – I don't think anyone is going to follow up on this one at this point: discussion died out long ago... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * RFC was updated on with a new RFC header, we might want to close both at the same time.  AlbinoFerret  15:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done – both RfC's closed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach

 * Request for closure on Johann Sebastian Bach ‎ which has had thirty-days and in ready to be closed:Could someone visit this Talk page at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and do a close on this RfC. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Francis Schonken (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2016
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  23:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Egyptian crisis (2011–14)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Egyptian crisis (2011–14) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not done – There's not enough discussion there to be able to assess a "consensus" (it doesn't even get to a "No consensus" result – there's just not enough there...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Canada
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Canada ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done – Closed by --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done – Closed as "no consensus" by . --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done – Closed by . --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Spanish general election, 2015/Archive 1
Would an editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Spanish general election, 2015/Archive 1 ? It's actually a WP:SNOWBALL case, but as the article's main author keeps disagreeing, we'd better have a formal closure. Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done – WP:SNOW closed by . --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  18:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  18:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Islam and war
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islam and war ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  18:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mariah Carey
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mariah Carey ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  19:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help
This is long overdue and I think the consensus is pretty clear (trending toward support) on this one, however I would like an uninvolved editor to close it just to be on the safe side. Thanks. &mdash; kikichugirl  oh hello! 18:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  19:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2015 November
- review of a move originally proposed 21 October 2015. Experience closing contentious discussions needed, and apologies in advance for the wall of text. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion has waned past the point of productivity. Calidum T&#124;C 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Total discussion stopped December 2, so it is stable and ready for closure. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Original close was voluntarily withdrawn. Listed for a new Admin close. (non-admin closure) Alsee (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As the closer of the move, it was NOT withdrawn. Where are you reading that? Tiggerjay (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I misread one of the comments there. All my error. I'm sorry for the confusion I caused. I self-reverted my edits. Except for the the comments here, everything should be back to the original state. Alsee (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, finally, thanks to . Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia ? See the subsection Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia.Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  00:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Certification Table Entry
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Certification Table Entry ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  00:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom
Requesting a closure of this old ANI discussion. The nominator is accused of systemic targeting a user (me) and nominating his articles at AFD. There was a boomerang, in fact. The discussion is old but not closed. Mhhossein (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ just closed with no action ensuing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:NQ Mobile
Requesting closure on these old discussions as the only relevant discussion is that the article is out of date which I started and has now been lost. The company recently announced a new Showself entertainment brand and some divestitures which I'd intended on working on. Rgeurts (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ really these do not need to be closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_29#Category:Latter-day_Saints_portal
Please close the discussion and rename the category. Thanks.--Broter (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

You now have to only close the discussion and delete the old category.--Broter (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Norman Milliken
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Norman Milliken ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  00:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Karbala
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Karbala ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jude Wanniski
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jude Wanniski ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Portal talk:Current events/2015 November 17
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Portal talk:Current events/2015 November 17 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Contemporary worship music
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Contemporary worship music ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ by Fountains-of-Paris on 13/1/2016

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
It would be great if we could close this discussion, even though it's relatively recent, so that it directs people to the AFD instead of continuing the BLP discussion. Not sure if that's appropriate or not.--Jahaza (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ discussion is already archived, and there is no point. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/CobraNet/1
Making a community GAR was a bad choice. Although, I (suppose) consensus is clear, there's no one to close it. In fact, a huge backlog at GAR persists, help out if you can. You don't need formal closure for GARs but posting here was the last move. Also, there's a RfC on the talk page of the article, if you're willing you can participate. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#128214;  C ) 15:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ delisted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio

 * This RfC is still under template announcement and was started 10 January. Possibly wait until 10 February. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The question is whether it is fair and reasonable to have this template at the top of Marco Rubio when no other Republican candidate has a similar template. The Iowa caucus is in Feb. 1. The spouses of all other major candidates contesting Iowa and New Hampshire have pages.   And the Jeanette Rubio page is well-sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The "top" of the article currently has the lead section without any template, and normally a request to protect a page during polls or elections is done well in advance. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

and
 * ✅ closed, as discussion here overtaken by AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio
I am requesting that Administrators take a minute to consider the appropriateness of this ongoing discussion. I am aware that this is an unusual request, but the existence of these 2 discussions less than 2 weeks before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary creates an unusual situation, one that almost seems to verge on WP:POINTY applied to the actual election of an American President. Please note that there are in-depth profiles of Mrs. Rubio in Major media outlets, and that articles exist on the spouses of all other major candidates for President. And consider whether this discussion, with attendant templates, is appropriate on the eve of Iowa and New Hampshire.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The KEEP consensus is currently somewhat stronger, with only two editors opposed to keeping it at this time 19 January. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ by Coffee. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Boy (2015 film)
There was a neutrality dispute at The Boy (2015 film) regarding the film's reception. I joined the discussion after a request at the Film project and have re-drafted the section (the draft is available in full on the talk page). I did install it after a reasonable waiting period but one of the original editors involved in the dispute is now opposing the redraft (I have reverted to the original version for the time-being). I think the consensus is fairly clear but since I undertook the draft it will have no validity if I close the discussion. We need somebody impartial and not involved in the dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure on Phaedrus (dialogue) which has had thirty-days and in ready to be closed
Could someone visit this Talk page at Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue) and do a close on this short RfC during the holidays. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate listing AlbinoFerret  23:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC) ✅ - No consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Request for closure on Johann Sebastian Bach ‎ which has had thirty-days and in ready to be closed:Could someone visit this Talk page at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and do a close on this RfC. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * A DRN volunteer has taken it upon himself to close the RfC without knowledge that there is 4-5 Support for the edit with citations added, along with two Oppose. This is usually against DRN policy for volunteers there to close RfCs which are still open. I have written a follow-up RfC and keeping both RfCs open would make it easier for new editors to follow the argument. DRN policy is generally against the volunteers there to close RfCs especially when they resemble a "no comment/no consensus" demi-close. Could you glance at it. You had reposted this Request for closure here in the waiting queue after one of the Opposing editors deleted it here prematurely. Keeping both RfCs open would make it easier for new editors joining the discussion at the Bach Talk page. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the founders of DRN, one of the longest-serving volunteers there, and the current DRN Coordinator. There is no DRN policy against volunteers closing RfCs (regardless of the type of close). Since a pending RfC will result in a DRN case being closed (due to our rule against handling cases pending in more than one dispute resolution process), I see no reason that a DRN volunteer cannot close a RfC which is clearly ready to be closed so as to allow it to proceed at DRN (provided that consensus has not clearly been reached in the RFC, in which case there is no dispute to take to DRN). Such an action may result in the neutrality of the DRN volunteer coming into question and the best practice would be for that volunteer to not take the DRN case or to withdraw from it if he or she has already touched it, which is exactly what happened in this case. It must be bourne in mind that DRN volunteers, like all dispute resolution volunteers, are ordinary Wikipedia editors who also happen to work in DR. Except as noted above, they have the right to do anything any other Wikipedia editor has the right to do. That includes closing RfCs. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * New RfC has been started and forum shopping on DRN should be discouraged. If there is an open RfC then a new DRN should not be initiated, according to DRN policy. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✔️ AlbinoFerret  00:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  23:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure: Wikipedia talk:List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters
Would an experienced editor assess the discussion on the RfC at Talk:List_of_Power_Rangers_Dino_Charge_characters and close as appropriate.

This follows a formal RfC initiated 29 Nov 2015, Thanks. N2e (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  00:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Maronites
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Maronites ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  00:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ Participants came to an agreement at end of RFC, just boxed it up. AlbinoFerret  21:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:ExxonMobil
Discussion has gone stale. Requesting assessment of consensus and closer of discussion. Thanks Springee (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a 22 December RfC which is still under RfC template announcement with divided opinion. Should it wait until 22 January. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I had assumed 3 weeks was sufficient but if 1 month is standard then that is fine. Springee (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Would an experienced administrator please assess the consensus? Formal, administrator close is respectfully requested because the topic area is under active arbitration committee oversight WP:ARBCC and the discussion is contentious. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * AlbinoFerret 19:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
Perennial attempt to apply WP:CORE to projectpages. It's off-topic and out-of-scope at that noticeboard. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret 19:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ The view expressed above is just one of several different ones in the debate. Since there is plenty of discussion, allow time for it to complete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Help talk:IPA for English
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:IPA for English ? Thanks --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 15:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ by Fountains-of-Paris. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Honourable
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:The Honourable ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Sam Walton (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:White privilege
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White privilege ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Marsy's Law (Illinois)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marsy's Law (Illinois) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cold War II
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cold War II ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  02:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:AURORA
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:AURORA ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  02:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Dodge Tomahawk
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dodge Tomahawk ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  02:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Borderline personality disorder
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed by User:Fountains-of-Paris. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Séralini affair
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Séralini affair ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Alan Berg
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alan Berg ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  01:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  01:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference
An accurate closing rationale is needed. George Ho (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This appears to be 28 Dec Rfc with still ten days to go. Possibly check on 28 Jan. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  01:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Green children of Woolpit
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Green children of Woolpit ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed. Consensus already implemented on Dec. 30, 2015, by User:DrKay. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Glyphosate
clearly defined question in contentious topic area, ?consensus - need closure by uninvolved admin.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note that the RfC is only five days old and no one has agreed to end it early. That being said, the GMO ArbCom case should be wrapping up soon, so there's no harm in letting the RfC run it's normal time to allow the remedies can take effect in the meantime. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note that there are walls of text growing since Dec 4, no new editors have chimed in, and an unreasonable repetition of the same arguments, furthering WP:FUD stifles process. No one has disagreed tothe RFC. That being said, the GMO ArbCom case has been going on and on though King wants it to be wrapped up soon as possible, as he has stated repeatedly on the arbcom page, there's no harm in closing the RfC to stop the hemorraging of glyphosate so that small remedies can take effect in the meantime. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC) This RFC is only the first in 3 whole sale deletions by the same editor group, anticipating more RFC's to come.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Glyphosate ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

✅ Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Two individual subsections have been closed, but there are several more. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Two more of the six-part complex RfC are now closed. Is one of the editors there to compile a master RfC to close out the six sub-RfCs once the six sub-RfCs are closed? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Are there any issues that will remain outstanding afterwards, like unaddressed disputes or conflicts between the sub-closures? One of the open sections is for general comments on the whole RfC, which implies there might be some benefit to an overall close, but on the other hand, there's probably no need if all the outcomes are clear and nobody objects. You and are probably in a better position to decide that than I am. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 09:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The last two parts of the 6-part RfC were closed this morning. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✔️. Looks like this was all wrapped up a week ago. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Séralini affair
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Séralini affair ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ayurveda
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ayurveda ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Sam Walton (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens
For the Star Wars: The Force Awakens film article. Question as to whether "Episode VII " should be added to the title. 30 Days has passed. Extensive debate on this one. Probably best an admin take a look. Cheers - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  17:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The discussion was explicitly about adding it as an alternate title in parentheses. The title of the article was not up for discussion and has no bearing on this close. Do not confuse the issue with this request. Also, I removed from the request material that could be considered prejudicial; these requests must be neutrally worded. oknazevad (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. (The next sound you hear will be the crash of the collective fandom of Star Wars falling down about my head!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  04:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
This has only been open one week, however, we have an interest in resolving quickly as it's a current events situation. All of the principal parties have indicated an agreement that they would like to see rapid resolution of the RfC faster than 30 days, including me, the proposer. (p|User:Leitmotiv) LavaBaron (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Why not leave the RfC open, but change the article now as a temporary measure to be re-evaluated after the 30-day period ends? If it helps, my evaluation at this point is that "armed group" is the most likely to eventually reach consensus. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 02:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I'm pinging with that advice and will defer a decision to him. LavaBaron (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Holding it open is fine with me, though if the closer opts for any version of the nondescriptive word "group" the closer will hopefully provide reasoning that goes beyond naked vote-counting per my rebuttal comment in the thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * AlbinoFerret
 * ✅. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Watchdog.org
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Watchdog.org ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:PolitiFact.com
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:PolitiFact.com ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Philippine presidential election, 2016
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Philippine presidential election, 2016 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌. Not formatted as a proper RfC, and there is nothing to "assess" from the Talk page discussion there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This was a properly formatted RfC. listed it because "There is a dispute about which opinion polls should be included in the article." An RfC close would determine whether there is consensus to restore some or all of the disputed opinion polls. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to "assess", Cunard. You are wasting everyone's time again. There was no real question asked, and what little discussion there was seemed to agree that polls should remain at the separate article that's actually devoted to polling. This is YA example of why your spamming ANRFC with worthless entries is rendering the whole concept useless. It's no wonder that Admins are now just tuning it out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have closed the discussion. An RfC close also can guide participants on making a better-formulated RfC that hopefully will bring about more discussion and a better consensus. I have done so here. Cunard (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then, rather than spamming ANRFC with listing like this one, why don't you just go ahead and close ones like these yourself?! As you've been told multiple times, "RfC's" like this simply don't belong being listed here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bijeljina massacre
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bijeljina massacre ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  05:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ There are not enough replies from which a consensus could be drawn. Sam Walton (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT in Islam
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:LGBT in Islam ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ SNOW RFC and change has already been done, boxed it up tp archive it. AlbinoFerret  05:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox
This should be a simple close (Support: 61 !votes (75.4%), Oppose: 15 !votes (24.6%) for the proposal "Proposal: In all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the religion parameter ("Religion = ") of the infobox." with a a list of examples of religions and nonreligions.

That being said, this has been a contentious issue for many years, so a crystal clear closing summary by an uninvolved administrator will avoid many problems in the future. I would note that from past experience, anything that is vague or open to interpretation in the closing summary will become the locus of disputes and edit wars -- some editors really, really want the infobox of certain politicians to contain some variation on "Religion = Atheism", presumably to influence elections. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ No further action needed. RfC was closed with closing comment by User:Müdigkeit. (And, I might add, he/she did a great job of summarizing the consensus) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Either way your RfC succeeded in rallying raw votes, congratulations for that. --PanchoS (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Presumably to influence elections," you're saying, ? What an absurd and generalizing allegation, placed here to frame the RfC's closing. Opponents of your RfC seemed to have very different motivations. I personally don't even have an idea how the outcome of your RfC would be related to one or the other election.


 * You seem to have completely misinterpreted what I wrote. I implied nothing about those who opposed the RfC, who I assume all gave the topic a lot of thought and disagreed with the proposition because they concluded that it wasn't good for the encyclopedia. I referred to a completely different group of editors; those who refused to accept the consensus of the previous RfC that covered religion in the infobox of BLPs and who edit warred against consensus. I don't think any of those editors bothered to comment on the latest RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
Could an uninvolved editor close the RFC linked above? Thanks! L.tak (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. This was a duplicate listing. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Files for discussion/2015 November 26
Would an admin assess the consensus at ? Please consider the related discussion Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Explicit. Cunard (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 3
Very long overdue TfD, previously NAC'd and DRV'd. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . Cunard (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Should Lindsay Lohan be included as a possible candidate for President of the United States in 2020?
Request for WP:SNOW close. The RfC has not been open for a full 30 days, however, after several weeks, 6 editors support deletion of Lindsay Lohan as a presidential candidate, 2 are opposed. Of the two who are opposed, one has since said "You all clearly have consensus, so if someone wants to delete Lohan I won't argue about it.". LavaBaron (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. There really is nothing to decide here, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 9
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 7
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_12
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_24
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_27
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_27
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_28
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_29
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_29
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_2
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've posted this back on AN from the archives, as there isn't quite a consensus right now. Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Unblocked with topic ban. Sam Walton (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Plovdiv
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Plovdiv ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  16:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
There have been about a dozen comments in the last 30 days, but a consensus is not clear. It has not been contentious, but since it affects a WP guideline, an uninvolved editor is requested to assess consensus and close it. Thanks, —Ojorojo (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

✅ - No consensus, but some options were eliminated. Recommend a second-round RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
Please disposition Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Also, may we archive Talk:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * From the perspective of closure, there's no need for the discussion to be kept on the current talk page. The closer should be able to find it, and may or may not choose to dearchive it at that time. After archiving, it may also be helpful to add a link to the ANRFC entry pointing to the new location. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 22:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  17:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Charli XCX
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Charli XCX ? Thanks, sst✈ (speak now) 06:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Katietalk 00:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Oldest people
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oldest people ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  16:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 14
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_14
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Martin McGuinness
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Martin McGuinness ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. My only-ever edit to the Troubles on Wikipedia is now behind me...— S Marshall  T/C 23:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Socialism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Socialism ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

✅ Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Meshblock
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Meshblock ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ That was easy, the move has already been done. --GRuban (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC) ✅ - Rough consensus is Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Rare
Need an uninvolved admin to close this very long, rambling, and frequently heated requested move. To me it looks like the consensus is to move it to Rare (company), but I'm an involved party, so I can't rule on it. Note that a previous page move of the same page was also made, which seems to have been closed in a way that went arguably against consensus. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ SarahSV (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 8
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 8
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 9
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 9
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 10
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 11
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_12
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_13
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_13
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_13
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_13
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_14
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_15
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_15
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_15
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_18
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_20
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_20
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_23
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_23
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_23
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Transhumanist politics
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Transhumanist politics ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC) ✅ - No consensus

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * . Local editors on the page have agreed to retain this practice, a close is not needed. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 07:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gilles-Éric Séralini
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gilles-Éric Séralini ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Martin McGuinness
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Martin McGuinness ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

✅ Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

✅ - No consensus, but advice to drop certain alternatives and run an RFC with fewer choices. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024
This AfD has been open for 18 days with the last !vote being registered more than 3 days ago, following a third relisting. After a thorough conversation with many excellent policy points on all sides, there is a slim majority of 24 !votes for Delete (53% of all opinions registered). LavaBaron (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If I was closing that (which, mercifully, I'm not...), I'd close it as "No consensus" – there are valid points on both sides, and there is not a clear consensus in either direction... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by (thanks!) <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 07:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
Can someone close the RFC here? L.tak (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

✅ Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Charli XCX
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Charli XCX ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️. Closed by KrakatoaKatie. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Panagiotis Kone
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Panagiotis Kone ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ – though it's more accurate to label this "moot". Anyway, closed either way. (Though another one that didn't belong listed here, and likely didn't need a "formal" close...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Martin McGuinness
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Martin McGuinness ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️. Closed by AlbinoFerret. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the United States ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

✅ Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_15
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? See for example the subsection Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️. Closed by Ched. Note: Now at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive913. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Habib Ali al-Jifri
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Habib Ali al-Jifri ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ as there is no clarity re: what the scope of the RfC, or for that matter, the need for assessment given the structure of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ to give advice on how to proceed. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Slano Blato Landslide
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Slano Blato Landslide ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ as outcome is already enacted, and the notes at the bottom of the RfC are sufficient for this purpose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ to record the outcome and explain what editors should do if they disagree with the outcome. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Media franchise
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Media franchise ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌. This was a merge discussion which should not have been started as an RfC in the first place; given the comments/response to it anyway, I see no need to recognise it as a RfC just because a bot tag previously said that it was. Request refused. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge discussions should be closed whether or not they are RfCs. ✅. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ethnocracy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ethnocracy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌. This RfC was started by a banned user so does not require a formal assessment. Even if we look at the question being open to comment, each response to it is differently nuanced and I see no need for anyone to waste time trying to further summarise them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. A participant wrote, "Note the above user was blocked as a long term sock puppet. However the question stands for comment", so the participant did not want the RfC to be invalidated. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ again as there is no need. Nobody understood the question to be answered, and by the time the editor who opened the RfC attempted to clarify, only one further comment was received to which the proposer suggested the clarified question was still not fully understood. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ to give advice on how to proceed. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:ShadowsCommons
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:ShadowsCommons ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ given that assessment is unnecessary from the limited tangential comments which responded to the section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ to give advice on how to proceed. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images
Could we have an experienced editor or admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images ? Considering the backlog here, I thought it prudent to apply a day early for this biggie. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 01:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2015
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this RfC? The debate has come to a natural end, the conclusion being that zero changes should now be made—as the alternatives cannot be agreed upon. ? Thank-you, --Neve–selbert 12:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Mental Asylum at 13:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC) already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_24
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_26
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_5
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_9
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
This has been open for over a week. There's still some discussion, but at this point I think its productivity is coming to an end. The main complication is that an admin already attempted to resolve the dispute, but didn't actually close the discussion or provide an answer to the initial question. To help avoid any doubt in resolving this issue, I'd like to request that the closer explicitly note what the consensus is about the RfC being appealed. Thanks, <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 09:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ here, but see closing summary if this is in issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ here, but see closing summary if this is in issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Zoolander No. 2
Discussion was relisted on February 1st, and almost two weeks have since past. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 19:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Main Line (NJ Transit)
Open for 24 days. No new comments since February 1. There is a consensus to close this RM. epicgenius ( talk ) 02:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ Withdrawing own nomination. epicgenius ( talk ) 22:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:British Empire
Although its been up a week, the date in the RFC has been altered to give the impression it has only just been started. clearly doesn't accept a lack of consensus for his proposal and is opposing closure, I think this needs a neutral admin to review the discussion and sentence the closure (or not) as they deem appropriate. As a neutral 3rd party looking at some of the comments being made eg ''Do that, and it will be reverted. This act will be considered an aggression'' and the assertion that only he can close the RFC I can see trouble ahead. Hopefully a steely eyed admin can intervene and pour oil on troubled waters. Pinging to let him know I've done this. WCM email 17:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Need a neutral review but even the RfC is tedious, the obsession with inserting superpower against consensus has been running for a coupe of months now. I didn't spot the change of date that really is gaming  Snowded  TALK 00:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wee Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, with all due respect, I would just like to say that this wouldn't had happened if Snowded and Juanriley (two of the stalkers who've constantly slithered towards my edits) wouldn't had been involved regardless of the outcome of the Rfc and discussions. Now personally, I am very accepting with others disagreeing and even reverting my edits. What I am not okay with is Snowded's constant stalking and manipulation of my edits. If you check the British Empire Talk page, you'll see that others didn't respond as much as Snowded did because he was constantly fighting back by constantly posting against my edits that almost looks like a backlash (if you want more examples of his and Juanriley's stalking, leave me a message in my talk page, I promise to take the time to list them all). Yes, I agree that the Rfc ws going for a couple of days, but recently I hadn't had the time to post up-to-date, and besides, it should be deleted in 20 days or so by a bot and not to mention that Wikipedia has no deadlines. (N0n3up (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC))


 * I would ordinarily have left the RFC to run for 30 days or more before resorting to here. The comments made by N0n3up with the bad faith accusations of "stalking" and manipulation not to mention the comments referenced above convinced me this was becoming toxic and required an admin to look at.  I was very tempted to take this to WP:ANI.  WCM email 01:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Wee Apparently you didn't look at the history involved in my previous post. I would normally concentrate on the topic in hand, but I felt that it was necessary to bring this into light because this dilemma had been one problem in the discussion page in BE talk page. I agree I shouldn't have posted this here and should've probably saved it for ANI. But if you think I posted in bad faith, you're wrong. I also covered the loose ends due to my lack of time and etc.. Again, recheck what I've said, I'm not accusing anyone, I'm simply stating what happened. I apologize for the inconvenience this provoked. (N0n3up (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC))


 * User:Wiki-Ed and User:Snowded have done an admirable job in trying to keep a well written article intact. On this particular issue I agree with them--though I think we have had disagreements in the past. I hesitated to post here (and there) lately because User:N0n3up will say I am stalking him. In fact, I think this is the first article we came to loggerheads on and lately again I have attempted to keep my presence minimal where and when he starts off on a tirade on other articles we both apparently watch. Juan Riley (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Juan Riley First of all, save it for ANI, this is regarding the Rfc. Second, your edits in British Empire, United Kingdom and the American Civil War, France, Suez Crisis, List of pioneers in computer science and Treaty of Versailles say otherwise, All of which you began to edit since I started to edit in them, all beginning in British Empire. It's only a matter of finding your name in the edit history of each article. Again, this is regarding the Rfc, in which I made a mistake mentioning this. (N0n3up (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC))


 * Nuff said. Juan Riley (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyhow, Kudpung thought it best to leave it here, just to get back in track of topic, think we went off rail a second there. (N0n3up (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC))

I recommend that the Rfc be allowed to run its (30-day) course. Then place a 1-year moratorium, upon closure of the Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with GoodDay here this is the most diplomatic way to handle this situation. Reb1981 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Though it hasn't been 30 days, it's about 21 days not including the pre-Rfc related discussion, with absolutely no chance of a consensus for superpower being added to the article. If we include the pre-Rfc discussion? This whole super power dispute has been going on since October 2015. Recommend closing that Rfc now & placing a 1-year moratorium on allowing the topic being raised again. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't know what paperwork needs to be filed, but I will close this and leave a note to say that this matter needs to be left alone for a year. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No additional paperwork other than what you've done. Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✔️ by  AlbinoFerret  02:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 7
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 7
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:St. Mirren F.C.
Open for 26 days (minimum = 7 days). Discussion stalled: last comment 4 days ago, previous comment 3 days before that. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Done Robert McClenon (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Josip Broz Tito
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Josip Broz Tito ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Done but no consensus. Recommend a new, more clearly worded RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Vehbi Koç
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vehbi Koç ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (this seems to have been listed twice) --GRuban (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Marco Rubio
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marco Rubio ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Josip Broz Tito
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Josip Broz Tito (Initiated 46 days ago on 11 December 2015|done=yes)? All users particating to the RfC agree to include in the lead a mention to "the repression of political opponents" during Tito's regime but for some unclear reasons one user opposes the change. Thanks, --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Done - No consensus, with many complaints about the wording of the RFC. Recommend a new, neutrally worded, clear RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_2
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Done – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ford Pinto
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ford Pinto ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 05:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lord Uxbridge's leg
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lord Uxbridge's leg ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * already done ~ RobTalk 05:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Monarchy of Canada
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Monarchy of Canada ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 16:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 16:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Caravan (1936 song)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Caravan (1936 song) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 16:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 19:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * already done ~ RobTalk 19:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Resting bitch face
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Resting bitch face ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 03:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Laucke
Unofficial discussion, but a non article editor has requested a formal close by an uninvolved editor. Please only close the !voting portion so we can continue the discussion until it is automatically archived. Cheers! 01:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1948_Palestinian_exodus_from_Lydda_and_Ramle
Could an editor close the discussion at Talk:1948_Palestinian_exodus_from_Lydda_and_Ramle? Thanks, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 20:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 05:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2016‎
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016‎ ? While the RfC has generated responses from approximately 35 editors, constructive responses to this RfC have dwindled to only a few in the past week as other controversies concerning the US Presidential election and candidates overtake this question. However, I think the question is still relevant and ask for assessment and closure, while the answer to the question is still useful. Thanks. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   00:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 23:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:British colonial campaigns
This RfC at Template talk:British colonial campaignsabout Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland pre-1922 centres around whether conflicts there should be included in this template. This is extremely contentious and follows a protracted discussion going back even further. There has been no activity for two weeks now, so I think closure by an uninvolved administrator would be appropriate. Cheers, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  07:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 22:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bitcoin
There's a RfC needing a formal close, thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 05:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Time Person of the Year
The 30 days expire today on this Rfc. May we have closure, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 05:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Amway
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Amway ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 06:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 2 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 06:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 06:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption
Would an editor please consider closing this RfC? There has been no activity for over a month. Thanks. ゼーロ (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 06:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 06:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Village_pump (proposals)/Archive 131
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village_pump (proposals)/Archive 131 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 06:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Drafts ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 06:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 05:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016_NFL_draft
If someone could close this requested move discussion, that would be appreciated. The consensus is obvious, but I'd like someone uninvolved to close it. I can take care of the actual moves (of which there will be many) if you'd prefer not to. ~ RobTalk 04:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done I closed the discussion for you and moved this page + Template:NFL Drafts; I let you take care of the other years and similarly-named pages, which are indeed numerous. Also, be aware that List of NFL Drafts currently redirects to List of professional American football drafts and only an admin can move List of NFL drafts until wp:page mover rights materialize. — JFG talk 17:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll make some requests at the uncontroversial move requests area. ~ RobTalk 17:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I also changed capitalization in Infobox NFL Draft. Be aware that you may get plenty of red links until all yearly drafts are moved, but all should work automatically in the end. — JFG talk 17:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Panini (sandwich)
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at the above page. This RfC concerns the dispute whether using panino or panini as the singular common noun in the article in the English (not Italian) language wiki best follows Wikipedia protocols on descriptive vs prescriptive linguistics. Py0alb (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * not done Not open 30 days yet; please feel free to ping me when it has been 30 days and I'd be happy to close. ~ RobTalk 20:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons
There is a large ~50 day backlog of files which have been transferred to Commons. Would appreciate it if willing admins could spend time on it. - F ASTILY   08:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

XfD

 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Quillen metric MFD that has been open and fairly solid consensus since March. As the nominator, I've walked away for a while only to discover this still isn't closed. Hasteur (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * already done ~ RobTalk 19:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

XfD
Click here to see requests for closures for XfDs.

Administrative
Click here to see requests for closures for administrative requests.

WP:CSD
We would like to ask for formal closure of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. The consensus seems to be unanimous, but since this is a (minor) change to speedy deletion criteria, we'd prefer a formal closure. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 20:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that one of the editors in the discussion has requested admin closure, by someone who is familiar with MFD . <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 18:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Nakon. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
This RfC has expired. Could a non-involved editor please give it a formal close? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * done by BU Rob13. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring and Wikipedia talk:User pages
Seven days since last vote. Can be closed now. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 17:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Really should wait the full 30 days on this one given how contentious this area has been recently. ~ RobTalk 20:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All discussion has ceased. Just because there's a time limit does not mean it's rigid. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 10:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The closer of User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring should also close Wikipedia talk:User pages at the same time. The latter RfC is entirely concerned with questions also covered in the former (in section A3 in particular), just posed differently. Oddly enough, the two RfCs drew comments from a largely different set of editors. As such, they need to be closed together to assess full consensus and prevent contradictory results that will lead to the issue persisting as different sides cite their favored outcome. As such, I have added the latter RfC to this request. I don't envy the closer's task. A2soup (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Seraphimblade, Ymblanter, and KrakatoaKatie. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Yahweh
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Yahweh ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * not done Already archived, minimal participation, and no clear question. Not worth unarchiving for a closure that sheds no light on anything. ~ RobTalk 22:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Christ myth theory
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christ myth theory ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 22:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 22:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Paisley
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paisley ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 21:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 20:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 20:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lafayette Welcoming Parade of 1824 (New York)
Would an admin determine if this discussion is still related to the topic and, if not, close it? LavaBaron (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * already done ~ RobTalk 22:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Marlon Brando
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marlon Brando ? See the subsection Talk:Marlon Brando. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 08:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Psychology sidebar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Psychology sidebar ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 15:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 Stanley Cup playoffs
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 Stanley Cup playoffs ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 15:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of films considered the best
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of films considered the best ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 15:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:To Pimp a Butterfly
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:To Pimp a Butterfly ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 15:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 14:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Genocides in history
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genocides in history ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 14:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Education of the British Royal Family
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Education of the British Royal Family ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 13:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Education of the British Royal Family
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Education of the British Royal Family ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 13:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 12:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Timothy Leary
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Timothy Leary ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 12:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Sunni Islam
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Sunni Islam ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 12:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done ~ RobTalk 12:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus ? ? Thanks,  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * not done Listed further up, removing duplicate listing. ~ RobTalk 12:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Backlogs
Click here to see requests for closures for backlogs.

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
This is ripe for closure. It will require adding the same new line to each of two pages, Disambiguation and Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done I'll let you make the proposed changes to those pages. ~ RobTalk 12:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Backlogs
Click here to see requests for closures for backlogs.

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive916
I'm requesting an admin to assess the consensus at this thread. Besides multiple other uncivilities by the nominator (such as when he told me that I was "tripping on acid" or "belonged in a place where I should be taken care of on hourly basis") he did not refrain from making further attacks by saying "your "just for fun reverts" appear childish to me", "...then just use a thesaurus or ask an adult" and "the English you used was childish and quite wrong". After reporting it, he surprisingly repeated his attack on the ANI page! I have explained in detail how many times he had been warned by admins to resolve his major civility issues. Thank you. Mhhossein (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not done - request is stale. If user presents an issue in the future, please notify the relevant noticeboard. Thank you. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 07:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024 (2nd nomination)
I would like to request an admin close abort this AfD on two grounds: (a) it is not a request for deletion, but a request for renaming, (b) this specific article just passed AfD 84 days ago; this newest AfD was opened by a freshly-minted account that has already accumulated a block log in its 30 days activity. It is unreasonable to subject our articles to repeated and constant AfDing by WP:DUCKs every few months in the hope that eventually no one will be watching and an AfD will "stick". This creates a severe drain on the time and resources of editors and disrupts the project substantially. LavaBaron (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that the nom, whose account was open for a month, has now been blocked for a month by Coffee (their second block in their short Wikihistory). Also, take a gander at their userspace. All these facts combined indicates this is a SPA whose single-purpose is disruption. Again request a procedural close on this disruptive AfD. LavaBaron (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Administrator note: I closed the previous AFD and blocked the current nominator indefinitely for different reasons. But now that so many other people have participated in the discussion, I'm that a procedural close is the right course of action. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a cup  //  beans  // 05:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * With deference and appreciation for Coffee's explanation vis a vis the number of participants, I don't believe the fact that this section of the noticeboard seems to have been essentially abandoned should become a wedge through which all manner of spurious things can be crammed through. I requested an abortion of this AfD by the book, in a timely manner, and in a single and compact location instead of spamming every on-line Admin about it. To keep this AfD open now would essentially be punishing me for not erupting into hysterics. Ojectively, the AfD would have been aborted on 16MAY had it been evaluated for closure at that time. Past inaction cannot be used to countenance present inaction. To ration my time so that I can devote appropriate energy to this non-GF AfD, I have already had to abandon two GA reviews after other editors have already offered feedback. Disruptive AfDs by socks create a real drain on resources of contributing editors and should be shut-down. The logical conclusion of us not doing that is no more articles left on WP as they've all been AfD blitzed by socks. LavaBaron (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is a behavioural problem with the AfD nominator, ask an admin or go to SPI/ANI/whatever. But is it really necessary to close the AfD ASAP?
 * Ex post the sheer amount of comments on both sides proves that the community does not consider the nomination frivolous. But even ex ante I do not see what would be the rationale for a speedy close; even if the wording is aggressive, it is not unquestionably disruptive, and re-opening a "no consensus" AfD after three months is not a DRV in disguise.
 * Reading the closing comment of that one, I would even think re-opening it immediately with a link and a more precise question about the sources could be appropriate. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 10:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. The AfD was made by a disruptive SPA who was indeffed almost immediately after opening it. The AfD is a re-nom of an AfD that was successfully rejected just the other month. The purpose of the re-AfD was single-fold: disruption. This is a charged topic and the AfD is likely to be charged. This was the SPAs entire purpose in opening it. The matter was settled just the other month, there is no reason to artificially create a charged and emotive atmosphere in WP which is what this frivolous reopening of a settled AfD is intended to do, and is accomplishing. The matter has already been settled. The AfD should be subject to a procedural close. LavaBaron (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And as proof of point, I'm now being accused of trafficking in child porn. Lovely. Just lovely. Can someone please shut this shit show down? LavaBaron (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But, they make a great point . I shouldn't have had to click on your ridiculous "mystery" link to find out that I needed to contact a Wikimedia steward regarding that user's userpage. The fact that you didn't properly contact an administrator regarding that shit, shows that you wanted that to have some form of magical effect on the AFD. That is more disruptive than anything anyone else has done on that AFD, with the exception of the nominator, and it says a lot about your character. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 13:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Really, Coffee? Really? A "great point"? I alerted the community that the nom of this AfD was posting "non-contextualized naked toddler pics on their userspace" - what kind of "mystery" is that? And as for me not 'contacting an admin' ... the editor had already been blocked by you for several hours at the time I alerted the community. You didn't need to click on a "mystery link." You were already aware of the editor's userspace and were choosing to do nothing about it. If the pilot is asleep at the controls you're damn right I'm going to wake-up the passengers. Far from impugning my character, it says a lot about the character of someone not willing to do the right thing until there's public pressure on them to act.
 * The person who made this vile and sick personal attack against me has now fully retracted it. But you're still saying this retracted personal attack is a "great" point. So if you really believe that, and aren't just firing chaff to draw attention from your inexcusably delayed action on this matter, you need to do something about it right now. And I'm not talking about some Wiki-drama shake-out-the-sillies finger-wagging "tsk-tsk!" block, I mean you need to call the police. LavaBaron (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your original link said nothing of the sort. Don't play games with me. And as to this drivel: "You were already aware of the editor's userspace" - administrators rarely view userpages before or after they block someone, just as I had not viewed their userpage. So your accusation that I was "not willing to do the right thing" is not just baseless, it's false. I'll warn you to not do that again. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 21:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Already done another admin has now closed this AfD; request is now moot LavaBaron (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 07:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested moves
Click here to see requests for closures for requested moves.

Talk:Dr. Luke
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dr. Luke ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 14:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Amway
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Amway ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done and closed as no consensus a week ago by (non-administrator) (ping).  Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 15:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:British colonial campaigns
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:British colonial campaigns ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done two weeks ago and closed as no consensus (default to status quo) by (non-administrator) (ping). The RfC was (in short) about whether Ireland under British rule is considered as a colony of Great Britain.  Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 15:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Emmaus Nicopolis
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emmaus Nicopolis ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 15:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Pantomime
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pantomime ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) . The toxic environment at the RfC will likely make necessary to open a new one (with better wording, hopefully). Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 16:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Order of approximation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Order of approximation ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done LavaBaron (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games
This Rfc's tag has expired (after 30 days) & so we need somebody to close it. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Would somebody close this Rfc, please? :) GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It's been nearly a full month, since the Rfc tag expired. Would someone PLEASE review the results & close? GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Going on 5-full weeks, now. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Syed Hamid Hussain
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syed Hamid Hussain ? Please also consider the discussion at Talk:Bacha Khan University attack. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) . The RfC is actually a merge proposal, and could not be resolved. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 11:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:My Old Kentucky Home/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:My Old Kentucky Home/Archive 1 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 12:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Category talk:Fair use in... images
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Fair use in... images ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) - procedural close in favor of a CfD discussion. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 11:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 11:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles ? Thanks, SST flyer 04:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Done--GRuban (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done Mz7 (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Second law of thermodynamics
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Second law of thermodynamics ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Done for #1 Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ted Cruz
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ted Cruz ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No close is necessary. It's already moved to Talk:Ted_Cruz/Archive_8 and the consensus is obvious if not meaningless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Tamils
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tamils ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Superman
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Superman ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Al Jazeera America
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Al Jazeera America ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Domestic violence
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Domestic violence ? See the subsection Talk:Domestic violence. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Kanye West
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kanye West ? See the subsection Talk:Kanye West. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Catherine Zeta-Jones/Archive 1
A close is badly needed here to resolve a dispute regarding whether an infobox should remain in the article. If you're an experienced uninvolved user, please feel free to close the discussion. Thank you. ~ RobTalk 03:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * On the one hand, there was never a formal RFC. On the other hand, there was discussion as if there had been a formal RFC.  As a result, I am closing the question as if there had been a formal RFC.  Both strength of numbers and strength of arguments support restoring the infobox.  Another RFC is recommended as to what to list as her nationality (Welsh, British, omit nationality).  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * already done. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Full Service (book)
Consensus may have been reached. This needs an accurate closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jean Lapierre
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jean Lapierre ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done by AjaxSmack. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2016 UCLA shooting

 * Please disposition Articles for deletion/2016 UCLA shooting. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 *  Comment - While this discussion has been closed, no verdict on the closure (keep/rename/delete/no consensus) has been specified. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that difficult to work out the answer - see the article / talk page history. Or you could have asked the closer to clarify. Closed properly now, anyway. BencherliteTalk 00:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * already done. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Harambe‎

 * Please disposition Articles for deletion/Harambe‎. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * already done. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard
This discussion needs to be closed before it approaches canvassing. 107.77.229.153 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't and having that list here is the height of irony. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Not done Per WP:APPNOTE, it is okay to notify others on a central noticeboard (like WP:AN) about an ongoing discussion as long as the notification is neutrally-worded. It was done properly here. No need for closure. Mz7 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Area of a disk
a bot just removed the template as 30 days has passed..so requesting again..will an experienced, uninvolved admin please undertake closing the RfC at "area of a disk"...it's been open a month but discussion has pretty much died over the past couple of weeks...about 30 people contributed with 26 "voting" (16 to 10 favoring "circle") with lots of policy points/discussion on both sides...it's a very long rfc and will take a not insignificant amount of time to close properly..so you'd have to be willing to spend some time...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Moved from WP:AN — xaosflux  Talk 14:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

done Tazerdadog (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done by at 05:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC). Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Australian Ambassadors to Venezuela
Has gone well over the 7 days. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done (relisted by someone else) Deryck C. 15:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

XfD
Click here to see requests for closures for XfDs.

Administrative
Click here to see requests for closures for administrative requests.

Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry
Please assess the consensus at that discussion. Some editors believe there's consensus for the change, but another has reverted claiming no consensus. Thanks. ~ RobTalk 12:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. No closure action necessary as the substance of the discussion has already moved on. Deryck C. 15:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images
This RfC recently expired. Would be good to get an official close on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , no new input in a long time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

done Tazerdadog (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox officeholder
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

done Tazerdadog (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Resting bitch face
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Resting bitch face ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

done Tazerdadog (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:MMR vaccine controversy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MMR vaccine controversy ? Please consider Talk:MMR vaccine controversy in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

doneTazerdadog (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Yuan dynasty
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Yuan dynasty ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think a third-party closure is necessary. The historical nuances have been expounded in the discussion and there's little dispute. The general sentiment is that we need a better map, but until then it is better to keep the current map than none. I'd leave the discussion open so other editors can add their comments as appropriate. Deryck C. 10:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the discussion, . I withdraw this closure request. Marking as done for the bot. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)