Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 21

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 08:30, 18 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 08:11, 17 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 08:11, 17 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 08:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-free content review
This discussion forum has an extensive backlog where the oldest active entry was started on 10 June 2015, and at the time if me posting this request, the page has 163 discussions that have yet to be closed, several started over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please update below as the backlog is (slowly) taken care of.--Aervanath (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * About 155 discussions still to be closed.
 * About 155 discussions still to be closed.

Since this discussion board is now deprecated, and there will be no new discussions opened there, I would appreciate some help clearing the backlog.--Aervanath (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just "did" about 3 of them. For the ones where I believe could really use more discussion, I've been relisting them on WP:FFD (but not in huge droves as that would overwhelm the daily subpages over there.) Steel1943  (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We're getting close to having all these discussions closed. NFCR is now down to 100 open discussions. Also, in November, NFCR was shut down to new requests, directing new requests to WP:FFD; when all of the discussions are closed from NFCR, the noticeboard will be closed and marked as historical. Steel1943  (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally ✅. Thanks to everyone who helped clear the backlog. Steel1943  (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an administrator please assess the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard? Thanks, --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion is now located at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278. This is an ongoing issue. Can it be de-archived and evaluated? --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Take it to ArbCom. It's not going to happen here. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, we are not going to bother the poor Arbs with this. Not yet anyway. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Taharrush jamai
I'm looking for an admin to close this move request, because of the sensitive nature of it. It's worth noting that a few new or little-used accounts/IPs have commented on both sides. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:Drmies. --GRuban (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

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

✅ Robert McClenon (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

✅ - No consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:02, 22 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 07:55, 23 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 07:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  23:35, 23 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)
 * ✅ by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_3
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)
 * ✅ by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_8
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_13
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_13
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_13
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin please assess the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and close the discussion as they see fit. Thanks, WCM email 12:36, 22 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 08:03, 25 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 08:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk: List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office
A consensus has been reached. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A consensus at an RFC is the result of 30 days of discussion. The bot continues to invite editors.  There is no need for an early close.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. GoodDay (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis creation narrative
Open for 25 days. The discussion has petered out, and there is a clear consensus that it can be closed now. But this is a highly controversial issue, and has been the subject of numerous previous requests. Looking for an experienced, careful, and brave admin to close the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:StAnselm, I think you need to butter any prospective admin up a bit more. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , help me out here. I have it 15-11, if I skip the intermediary polls, one of which I closed and the others I have yet to assess. Oppose: In ictu oculi, StAnselm, Polentarion, Tiggerjay, StevenJ81, JudeccaXIII, Simon Burchell, Graeme Bartlett, InsertCleverPhraseHere, BobKilcoyne, agr (ArnoldReinhold), Srnec, HokieRNB, H. Humbert, Amakuru. Support: Theroadislong, First Light, Doug Weller, Moxy, Hy Brasil, RGloucester, Rwenonah, Scjessey, Jonathan Tweet, Jess, jps. Note: I have friends and lovers on either side, so I think I can be unfair to both sides. I'm not saying, by the way, that I'll actually finish this: it's a beast. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, you missed Basileias as an oppose in the main discussion. But I found the opinion poll quite confusing, and I some editors voted only in it, so Darkfrog24, 172.58.225.118, StevenJ81, Deryck C, Roches, Dmcq, Dweller, and Maher-shalal-hashbaz should be added to the "opposes", with Leonhard Fortier, Röbin Liönheart, Khajidha, James, Dimadick, Keahapana and AIRcorn added to the supports. Also, First Light is clearly an oppose rather than a support. StAnselm (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why I asked you, to copyedit. Thanks. Yeah, I did not look/count in those sections yet. I have some doubts about that IP, and will ping User:Bishonen. Wait, I just did. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that I left out Martin Hogbin as well: I failed to copy him and Basileias from my list in Notepad. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

✅ by --Aervanath (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:George Young (politician)
After days of recycling the same arguments over and over, it looks like there is a sort of compromise everyone would agree with, while the talk page has not been edited for a week.--The Traditionalist (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅--Aervanath (talk) 13:05, 27 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)
 * Why is an early close being requested? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon, maybe because, in the Proposals section, editors have reached an agreement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Flyer22 Reborn. Today is the 30th day after the RfC was opened, so an RfC close will no longer be early. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Vehbi_Koç
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vehbi_Koç ? Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016
Would an uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 ? 108.2.58.56 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Shrauta
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus of the RfC at Talk:Shrauta ? I doubt there will be more input.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

❌ - No need to close after running for 7 rather than 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

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

✅ - No consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅--Aervanath (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cannabis dispensaries in the United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cannabis dispensaries in the United States ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ North America1000 09:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Veganism/Archive 14
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Veganism/Archive 14 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not done - No such RFC in the current talk page. May be a malformed request for closure of the RFC.  It isn't obvious why Veganism would be discussed in connection with Human spaceflight, and I didn't see such a discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the link to Talk:Veganism/Archive 14. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. A "part two" RfC has also been opened on Talk:Veganism regarding this RfC. Esquivalience  t 03:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:40, 2 March 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 07:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_14
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:56, 2 March 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)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_7
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_10
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_11
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_11
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_13
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_13
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_14
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_14
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_14
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_15
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_15
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_15
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_15
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_16
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_16
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_17
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_17
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_17
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_17
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_18
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_18
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_18
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_18
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_19
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_19
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_20
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_20
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_20
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_20
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_20
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_20
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_21
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_21
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_21
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_21
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_23
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_23
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_23
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_24
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_25
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_26
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_27
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_27
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_28
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_28
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_28
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_28
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_29
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_29
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_29
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_29
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_1
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_1
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_1
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_1
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_1
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_1
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_2
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_2
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_2
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_2
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_2
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_2
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_2
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_2
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_2
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_2
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_2
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_2
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_3
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_3
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_3
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_3
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_3
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Muhammad ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing of this RFC is past due, and the lack of a close has caused contention in dispute resolution. However, closure by a non-Muslim editor would be likely to result in further contention.  Request closure by an uninvolved experienced Muslim editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that we should be specifying the religion of the closer, though I understand the pragmatic motivation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC).


 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Trump Entrepreneur Initiative
I'm requesting an early close (and corresponding move) of the move request of Trump Entrepreneur Initiative to Trump University. This is shaping up to be a WP:SNOW discussion and the subject is incredibly hot at the moment, with 99.9% of our traffic coming from our Trump University redirect (compare these). We are in the thick of the Republican primary election season and I'd think we want to confuse as few voters as possible. Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ wbm1058 (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:City of St Albans
Move request City of St Albans to St Albans City and District not opposed. Now request closure by admin and move. Pelarmian (talk)
 * ✅ wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 8
Can an admin please assess the consensus at this discussion and close it accordingly? Thanks in advance for your help. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ wbm1058 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple "Donald Drumpf" XfDs
Both Articles for deletion/Donald J Drumpf and Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2 are shaping up to be a WP:SNOW close to redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). Can a non-involved admin look over these and make a final judgement? Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather these stay open at least for a day or two longer before closing. One of these discussions just started today and the other, yesterday. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for reporting this early, . I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes
We need an uninvolved admin or experienced editor to close this RfC, there are policy-based arguments on both sides, and a suggested close has been challenged. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:FlightGear
It has not been 30 days yet but the only voice against restoring has been that of the editor who did the trimming, and in the meanwhile, edits to the article will progressively make it more difficult to restore the deleted content semi-automatically. LjL (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bernie Sanders
One of the longest and most contentious RfCs I have ever seen. We are really going to need one or more uninvolved admins who are willing to wade through this huge pile of material, apply the 20 or so policies and guidelines that have been invoked, determine consensus, and then write a crystal clear closing summary. No matter what the closing admin does, there will be complaints, appeals, attempts to re-interpret the closing comments, refusal to accept the result, and in all likelihood accusations of antisemitism. Be prepared for a shitstorm on this one.

Related: --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No original research/Noticeboard
 * Template talk:Infobox
 * Template talk:Infobox
 * Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28
 * ✅. I'm expecting to see a related thread at WP:AN, and I'm OK with that.  If I've missed or overlooked something important, or if there is new information that has surfaced since that discussion that would alter consensus, I'm glad to engage in that discussion and revisit my close. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a strong tendency to accept rather than challenge RfCs unless the closing admin made a glaring error, which is not the case here. Lacking infallibility, I am not so foolish as to think "I disagree with this decision" somehow equates to "the decision was wrong". That being said, I would have liked a fuller explanation as to how WP:CAT/R ("Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion.") was satisfied without any self-identification through direct speech by Bernie Sanders. Your comment that "Participants who supported the inclusion of 'Jewish' in the religion field of the infobox argued that several sources support the claim that Sanders identifies as Jewish." leads me to suspect that you believe that "I am Jewish" has has the same meaning as "I am a member of the Jewish religion". Do I understand you correctly? I am not trying to re-argue the RfC, just to understand the reasoning behind the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "I am Jewish" or "I am proud to be Jewish" by itself is ambiguous. Lacking context, it cannot be reliably equated with "I am a member of the Jewish religion."  I was merely summarizing that many arguments referred to this point of self-identification.  However, some sources where Sanders talks about being Jewish contained sufficient context to make it clear that religion or faith was being referred to specifically, in contrast to some other definition. I, JethroBT drop me a line 10:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Good close. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bernie Sanders
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bernie Sanders ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I had to dig to find the discussion in Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 6 (that page is already up to Archive 11!) – a bot archived the discussion on February 25. I believe the question is what to show for political party affiliations in the infobox. The most recent change to that appears to have been made at 14:12, 9 February 2016, so that piece of the infobox has been stable for a month now, and I endorse it as a reasonable reflection of the consensus.


 * ✅ wbm1058 (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that this began as a 01:56, 21 January 2016 semi-protected edit request by 24.229.229.102 which was answered as not done on 02:55, 21 January 2016 by a non-administrator.
 * A request for comment was filed by with this 12:08, 21 January 2016 edit.
 * Complicating matters, a second semi-protected edit request was filed at 05:39, 22 January 2016 by 144.59.38.41, just below the open RfC.
 * The second edit request, after some parallel discussion, was also answered as not done, at 19:32, 22 January 2016, by the same non-administrator.
 * Parallel discussion forks continued in both edit-request sections. The title of the first edit-request section was changed from Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016 to Democrat/Independent, with this 19:59, 26 January 2016 edit.
 * As also linked above, closed that RfC as "expired" at 13:01, 20 February 2016. The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. The RfC bot will automatically remove any RfC from the active RfC list after 30 days, measured from the first timestamp within the RfC section on the talk page. RfC may be extended beyond 30 days or re-listed by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The second edit-request was archived to at 01:28, 20 February 2016. I did not consider this discussion fork in my earlier determination of consensus, but, now that I've seen it, my endorsement of the current infobox as a reasonable reflection of the consensus still stands. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Eminem
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eminem ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive_39 ? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive_39, where the opening editor wrote, "Does the WP:BLPSOURCES ban on tabloid journalism mean that no BLP material can be sourced to a Tabloid Journal?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mohamed Hadid/Archives/2018
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mohamed Hadid/Archives/2018 ? The opening poster wrote: "Should the article include "(now Israel)" next to mentions of Mandatory Palestine, the name of the place at the time the subject was born?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of oldest living people
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of oldest living people ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of oldest living people
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of oldest living people ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. --GRuban (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Super-easy close: Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_179
We actually drafted and !voted on a 5-point consensus (with notes than need not be part of the close), at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. While this could be allowed to just expired into the archives, it would be convenient to have a formal close, because the thread, and its derailed sub-thread about clarifying MoS's meaning with regard to formal/encyclopedic language, is holding up re-opening a "clean" discussion on the latter point, unpolluted by "winningest"-related bickering. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This RFC has been archived. It has been marked as closed, but it has not been closed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. --GRuban (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics
May we have an administrator review & close that Rfc? It's been about 30 days now. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: This RfC is closely related to another RfC (Talk:Australian head of state dispute) and a merge proposal (Talk:Australian head of state dispute). It would be best if all three were closed together. (But the merge proposal is still being vigorously debated.) StAnselm (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, and reaching for my tin hat as this will undoubtedly cause ructions. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
Please disposition this discussion which started on 17FEB2016. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by JzG. Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:J. Philippe Rushton
Would an experienced editor please close this RFC? It has been open since January 25, and the consensus seems clear. 43.226.229.10 (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 122
Will an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reference_desk/Archive_122 concerning semi-protection of the Reference Desks? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, but if you think an RfC needs closure it might be an idea to un-archive it first since trolling through backlogs of archived discussions in order to close them as no consensus feels a lot like bureaucracy, and that's the kind of thing that puts admins off reviewing the backlogs. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought that there was consensus, but I don't plan to ask for closure review. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Star Alliance
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Star Alliance ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, though arguably unnecessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Village_pump (policy)/Archive 125
A two part expired RfC, should be a fairly easy close. Sam Walton (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sunrise <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 16:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:ExxonMobil
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ExxonMobil ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Brustopher (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Child abuse
The RfC recently expired and needs closing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Frampton
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Frampton ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Climate change denial
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Climate change denial ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 02:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Edmonson County High School
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Edmonson County High School ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, Tvx1 18:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:VPP
A formal close would be nice. Consensus was clear in the first week or two, and there has been no comment in the last week. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If an editor who is neutral, not against the proposal, could write a less biased closing statement, that would be better, wouldn't it? Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive279
Will an administrator please assess the consensus at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive279#BLP_violations_and_sockpuppetry_by_User:Lane99, and, if appropriate, implement the ban? This thread was archived without formal closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? Please consider Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885 and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, by . Drmies (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Carly Fiorina
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Carly Fiorina ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Drmies. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Maya civilization
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maya civilization ? See the subsection Talk:Maya civilization. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC) ✅ ____

Talk:Zionism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zionism ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC) ✅ - No consensus - Recommend new RFC

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016
We need an experienced editor/admin to look at this RfC. The initial question concerns the way in which Palestine is listed on this page, though the question also has implications for other leaders of unrecognised or partially recognized states, and for leaders of sub-national entities (constituent countries of the Netherlands and so forth). It also impacts on related pages (List of state leaders in 2015, etc...). I should note that a couple of editors have questioned the phrasing of the RfC itself. Appreciate that this is a complex one but a careful eye is needed to suggest how to proceed! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Discussion still ongoing.--Aervanath (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion is over and the result is zero consensus for change, per the lack of prior discussion to the Rfc & the misleading and biased nature of the Rfc question.--Neve–selbert 17:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The only reason to close this RFC would be that it is misleadingly and non-neutrally worded, in which case it can be closed as incapable of producing consensus. Otherwise it can be left open for 30 days.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As of this writing the most recent contribution to the RFC is only 30 seconds old. Convention is to let RFCs run for at least 30 days or as long as it takes to reach consensus, whichever is longer. The discussion is only 11 days old at this point. I skimmed the discussion; while the initial RFC could have been better-worded, my impression is that the majority of contributors are not biased by the wording of the RFC. I don't see anything there to convince me to close it early. There is no rush.--Aervanath (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The contributors to the survey are simply unaware that they are opposing the status quo, they believe that they are opposing a change to the status quo instead. This is the fundamental flaw & another reason as to why the Rfc should be closed ASAP.--Neve–selbert 20:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said, in my skimming of the discussion, the contributors seem perfectly aware of the implications of their statements. I see no need to close early, I see no fundamental flaw. Let the RFC run out its normal course, please.--Aervanath (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Would the result be binding? This is totally confusing, there are overwhelming flaws with the Rfc. The contributors are supporting keeping the status quo while at the same time supporting changing the status quo and vice versa (whichever way you look at it). Surely, that is a cause for concern.--Neve–selbert 22:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The result would be binding if there was consensus for any particular result. That's how consensus works. I (or whatever other admin eventually closes the RfC) will not look at whether people are for or against the "status quo", but will look at what people think the article should look like going forward. If there is a consensus for what the article should look like, then it doesn't matter what the status quo was.--Aervanath (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Would an administrator please review & close this Rfc? It's been 30 days, now. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. That won't be controversial at all, oh no. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Brustopher. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox medical condition
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox medical condition ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Guy (Help!) 08:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
Can someone assess the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. There are multiple options and there seems to be mixed opinion on all of them. There is also discussion about the same issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 20 and Talk:TVOS. Thanks, Tom29739 [ talk ] 17:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC).


 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:China
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:China ? The opening poster wrote: "Should we adopt or restore or (replace file) this flag with 7 February 2011 version of the flag". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - No Consensus - need new RFC with better publicity.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Comedy of the commons
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Comedy of the commons ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 19:27, 18 March 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) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see how the discussion is closed. Tvx1 18:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ack! So sorry, marked the wrong discussion! Let me look at this one too, though...--GRuban (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Really done. I'm sure this time. And also marked done the other place this is listed here. --GRuban (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Communist Manifesto
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Communist Manifesto ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Freedom Caucus
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Freedom Caucus ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Fleshlight
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fleshlight ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Daily Stormer
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:The Daily Stormer ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by ‎KrakatoaKatie. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Two RFC's need closing
One is snow close Talk:Muhammad. The other needs a cool headed admin(preferably knowledgeable in Islam) who is willing to read the entire RFC and is able to deal with the fall out later on. Talk:Muhammad. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Muhammad ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by SMcCandlish. --GRuban (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Prices
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Prices ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Dollar Shave Club
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dollar Shave Club ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Malcolm X
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Malcolm X ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alsee (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Child abuse
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Child abuse ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ by Drmies. Alsee (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mary Katharine Ham
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mary Katharine Ham ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alsee (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alsee (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Rafik Yousef
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rafik Yousef ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alsee (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * AFAICT, there are four (!) RfCs on essentially the same subject. This one and Wikipedia talk:Videos/Archive 1 are about embedding videos in general, while Talk:A Free Ride (closed, but under appeal) and Talk:Debbie Does Dallas are about individual videos, both of which are pornographic. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 22:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There was also this discussion which was based on a complete misunderstanding of how embedding works and what it is for. Without speculating on their motivations, several editors have gone off half-cocked and started discussions without first understanding the implications of changing the standard parctice of embedding public domain movies in articles about those movies. Even the most recent RfC does not explain how embedding works and as a result editors are voting based on assumptions about bandwidth usage or movies playing automatically. I've just about given up on this issue. Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This RFC is an overdue WP:SNOW. 13 OPPOSE, 3 SUPPORT. It would be very helpful to get this cleared away. Alsee (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cold War II
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cold War II ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alsee (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lady Saw
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus? Horizonlove (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alsee (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Masters Champions League
A merge proposal at the above page has received eight opinions but has had no activity for more than a month. So I am requesting that it be closed. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alsee (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 10
This TfD on a frequently-used Article Wizard template has been running for five days. All but one editor has !voted "keep" and the nominator has clarified that they don't actually want to delete or merge the template. --McGeddon (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Now seven days. It needs an admin or template editor closure because the template is protected. --McGeddon (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. This was closed as keep, 18 March, by BU Rob13   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Tor (anonymity network)
I was about to close Talk:Tor_(anonymity_network) as not moved, but I saw this subsection. I don't think I can close it because of this, if someone can close it, I'd be thankful. <font color="#000000">© <font color="#4B0082">Tb <font color="#6082B6">hotch <font color="#555555"> ™ (en-2.5). 20:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ sst✈  01:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Saint_Peter
Open nearly a month. Not many new arguments being made.  <font color="#4863A0">Calidum <font color="#A18648">¤   03:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ sst✈  01:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ Nothing meaningful to close there. Marked as "done=yes" to clear it off the list. Alsee (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files
Unclosed discussions from 2015 December 4, 2015 December 7 and Possibly unfree files/2015 December 29. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging and  as the most active admins in the FFD/PUF area both of which need a bit of attention.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox character
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox character ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 04:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure re Block chain (database)
I would like to request that an uninvolved administrator review and close the discussion at Talk:Block_chain_%28database%29. The discussion has been open for multiple weeks, and has had the involvement of a number of editors. Thanks. N2e (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (moved from WP:AN) — xaosflux  Talk 03:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 05:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools
Could a trusted editor or admin please close Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Consensus seems clear, but need someone uninvolved.
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 04:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 in American television
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 in American television ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 04:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Standard offer
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Standard offer ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 06:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 05:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Plushophilia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Plushophilia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mhhossein (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 8
Listed for a month individually, and started as part of a batch on 14 February. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Just Chilling. Steel1943  (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text ? — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This was going to be no consensus or consensus against, but discussion has renewed for a solution that will satisfy the opposition, so this should not be closed yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

✅ Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Political correctness
It was redated once and it's been ongoing for 54 days now, but discussion has pretty much died down. All of the monitors of Requests for comment/Language and linguistics voted for a third option, "often": 1, 2, 3 and 4. Current article lead hasn't existed for very long so nothing is yet "stable". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, discussion is closed. no result. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not explaining well enough but the point was to finally assess concensus as either or, not just closing it. I'll undo the closure in await for someone to actually decide either or. If there is no result it shall just be redated and reopened and the discussion and RfC continued because that is the proper procedure if there is no result yet, not closure. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed done tag so this will not be automatically archived by the bot. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Political correctness ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction: It was actually initiated on 28 November 2015, but redated a few times for the RfC bot. I'd also like to specify that this request was asked for to finally get an "either or" result, and not just "no decision". There was a request for closure of this discussion already above, but because of the discussion at the talk of this very project page I'll briefly mention this here for now and if the one above is returned I'll remove this bit. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm merging these two comments from a duplicate section I created below. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion was closed by User:Guy on 18 March. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yep, it's done. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This should run for another week or two, as it was not properly advertized and got insufficient attention. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not done - discussion has recently picked up again with a drive for more participants. Sam Walton (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed not done template so the bot won't prematurely advertise it. I agree with waiting more time before closing it. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by JzG. Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images ? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've fixed your initiation date to be the actual date for the RFC.
 * It's not clear to me whether this actually needs an official closing statement. The disputants seem to have moved on to other subjects, and that particular line of text in the guideline seems to be stable now.  It might be better to have people spend time on discussions that need help.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it needs official closing to settle this dispute. If this dispute comes up again, and it likely will, it will be good to point to the recent consensus on the matter...one with an official close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you realistically expect it to come up again during the next three to six months? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * With what I've seen there from two editors in particular, it is very likely to come up again within the next three to six months. Either way, even a year later is too soon for me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gun laws in Illinois
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun laws in Illinois ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Salvation Army
Could an admin take the appropriate closure action here and change the page notice on the article? A decision to force AmEng on the article last year was done so on a false statement on the original variant of English used, and the current consensus reflects the truth of the matter. – SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Being an admin not required . --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not done: can an admin change the page notice (seen when opening to edit the page), which still expressly states that the page is in AmEng. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Edit notice updated. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies; I updated a comment opening the page, but clearly that was not the notice meant. Guess being an admin was necessary after all. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change ? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ This was really resolved by the time I got there, but I rubberstamped the decision. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Close down Possibly Unfree Files
Could a trusted editor or admin please close Village pump (proposals). Consensus seems clear, but need someone uninvolved. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ ~ RobTalk 04:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Could an administrator please assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? This was a very contentious ANI thread, and a request for arbitration is concurrently open for the same issues. Mz7 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded. (I came here to make the same request). With all the admins that go by ANI on a regular basis, I can't believe that one, just one can't take a moment and close that train-wreck down. There is nothing that can be accomplished there. It's a huge pile of sewage now, and it's just getting bigger and smelling worse by the minute. There is a clear consensus to close it and the there already a request at ArbCom, that will almost certainly become a case as soon as the ANI is closed (they've basically said as much). So just close it already. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Now ✔️ Mz7 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian
Could we get a WP:SNOW close on this WP:BLP-sensitive AfD, please? Thanks, ansh 666 22:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌. It does not qualify for WP:SNOW. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_24
Could an uninvolved editor please assess consensus at this TfD? It's the oldest open discussion at TfD. Thanks!~ RobTalk 01:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:NARAL Pro-Choice America
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:NARAL Pro-Choice America ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mhhossein (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 125
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 125 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This discussion was archived, and there is relatively little firm consensus. As an alternative to un-archiving it solely for the sake of saying "many good comments, but not much consensus for specific actions here" – something that ought to be perfectly obvious to the experienced editors who participated in that discussion – I'm marking this request done and leaving it in the archive.  WhatamIdoing (talk)

Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_3
Uninvolved editor needed to perform the close. Consensus is fairly clear, but I'm involved. Thanks! ~ RobTalk 03:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ ~ RobTalk 09:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ ~ RobTalk 09:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Consensus is fairly obvious to close down PUF and merge it with WP:FFD. The closure should be uncontentious, but the enacting of the results will require some work. Posting this here so if anyone wants to go through the grunt work of closing down and marking "historical" the PUF process and then redirecting users in the relevant documentation to WP:FFD, they can get started on that. Also, someone will have to move the backlog of cases from PUF (or clear them) as well. Thanks for any help! -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 7 could potentially be referenced for most necessary steps that need to be taken for this merge. The only major differences between the referenced section and the PUF to FFD merge are that no venue is getting renamed and the changes that will need to be made to AnomieBOT's function are slightly different (the bot will have to stop making daily subpages for PUF after the merge has been finalized.) I made some attempt to work out the NFCR to FFD merge, so feel free to ping me with any questions. Steel1943  (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ ~ RobTalk 02:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:English Democrats
Expired RfC does not appear to let the actual article remain on a consensus version without official closure. I think it is possible to determine consensus and close it, so I am requesting it here. LjL (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ ~ RobTalk 08:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:David L. Jones
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David L. Jones ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an open sock investigation of one of the RFC participants for voting irregularities relating to this article. It it results in a block then I believe it may be appropriate to strike their !votes before evaluating a close. Alsee (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * please provide status update or follow up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist, it looks like SPI is probably backlogged. See the sock investigation link I gave. It's still listed as open, with no response yet from any admin, clerk, or checkuser. Once it's resolved anyone can remove the "On Hold" and close it. Alsee (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sock investigation closed with an AGF and no action. Speedy Vanjagenije marked this done while I was working my way through four RFC sections to close. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ✔️  Vanjagenije  (talk)  07:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Russell Wilson/Archives/2018/November
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Russell Wilson/Archives/2018/November ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a moot point. An editor updated his ancestry using a source published since the RfC began. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 09:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 09:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 10:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Proscenium
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Proscenium ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 09:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donetsk People's Republic
This RfC expired a week ago, but was never closed. A formal closure is needed, as involved editors are starting to make a bit of a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 07:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sea Mither
Per WP:SNOW, but the primary editors of the article refuse to acknowledge consensus. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ for now. The discussion, as it stands, is only one day old. In addition, I am not seeing any attempt at consensus-building or civility there (it's full of PA), so unless both parties (primarily the editor who filed this request) start a constructive discussion without resorting to verbal artillery, I'm afraid that this discussion will go nowhere. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 05:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 05:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Israel
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israel ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 06:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Marco Rubio
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marco Rubio ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alsee (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Shrauta
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shrauta ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Shannara Chronicles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Shannara Chronicles ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅: No outcome. Negligible participation and unclear RFC question. Alsee (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Andrawos Bassous (2nd nomination)
Relist has gone well over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Planet Nine
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Planet Nine ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This RfC has since been moved to an archive and there's no obvious consensus worth dragging it out of the archive to provide. Best let this one rest. ~ RobTalk 10:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
We need an experienced editor to assess the discussion in the above link. The difference of opinion lies in whether an article about a train station, or railway station, should begin with simply the name of the station (for example, "Culver City") or whether it should begin with the title of the article, like "Culver City station." Discussion has tapered off; recent remarks have simply repeated the arguments made earlier. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * BeenAroundAWhile, it's obvious that editors prefer option #1, but your RFC, despite being on the talk page for a guideline, never included any sort of proposal to change the words in the guideline. I'm therefore uncertain what you're looking for:  Someone to officially decree that editors prefer to begin articles about train stations with "Gotham train station is..." instead of "Gotham is..." at a rate of approximately 10:1?  That seems pointless to me, but it could be done.  Did you want someone to add a "rule" in MOS:LEAD about the One True Wording™ for the first sentence of articles about transit stations?  There is no sensible place to do that.  MOS:LEAD is for all the articles, not for one subject area (or even two or three subject areas).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. It would seem like possibly the place to put this result would be WP:STATIONS ( after adding a 'Lead' section there actually, it looks like the new addition would go in the 'Structure' section there, which already discusses the lead). But I agree with BeenAroundAWhile that the consensus on this one is clear, and the result of this RfC needs to be "codified" somewhere... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects pages are a bit like user pages; we can't demand that a particular group of editors declare that they recommend what other people have decided. However, if it had been me, I would have started the discussion there.  (Also, I would have split their limited advice on to a subpage and tagged it with WikiProject style advice.)
 * I do not see the point of "codifying" anything here. The English Wikipedia explicitly, by policy, does not have legal codes.  The point of closing a discussion is to help people figure out what the result of that one-time discussion was – assuming that they need any help, which in this case I seriously doubt – not to declare that this is the rule and that consensus can't change (or at least can't change without a huge fight).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as a kind of WP:BURO response – because this RfC didn't get posted to exactly the "right place", and in exactly the "right way", it doesn't count for anything?... It was held in what could be argued is the right place – MOS:LEAD. It was even advertised at WT:STATIONS. So the idea that it carries no "weight" there strikes me as an odd claim... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've explained myself clearly. It is indeed a WP:NOTBURO response:  IMO there is no need to jump through bureaucratic hoops like "have an uninvolved editor write a formal closing statement" or "codify the result in a guideline".  Use the results of the discussion, but don't be all bureaucratic about it.
 * My point about STATIONS is only that some volunteers (e.g., non-members who were involved in the discussion) can't force other volunteers (e.g., members of that WikiProject) to promote this view as if it were their own advice. That group can volunteer to include it, but we can't force them to do so.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ AIR corn (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters

 * Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters needs formal closure czar  04:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ I closed, then reverted my close when I saw it was initiated 03:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC). No need for controversy of someone possibly complaining about an early non-admin close. Alsee (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , merge discussions aren't RfCs—they need not go longer than a week if the consensus is clear... czar  02:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The merge closure page only indicates "one week or more" for cases with no dissent. Perhaps I'm being overly cautious and WP:NORUSH here, but there is notable dissent to that merge and the previous merge discussion was 6-6. A shift to no-consensus is unlikely but plausible. See WP:Jamaican Bobsled Team clause. Alsee (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'll leave it to to place the appropriate tags on the pages, etc. ~ RobTalk 13:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lindsay Lohan
Consensus needs to be evaluated. --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ No consensus was built over the proposed merger. Mhhossein (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Sargun Mehta/1
The subject GAR is open for community reassessment since October 2015. Need someone to conclude it. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Protonk (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Time Person of the Year
This Rfc has reached its 30th day. We need an administrator to close it & make his/her own interpretation of the results. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 13:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mitsubishi Magna
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mitsubishi Magna ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 13:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Maya civilization
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maya civilization ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 13:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 13:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Australian head of state dispute
IMHO, this Rfc's options have been unintentionally worded in a non-neutral style & therefore, the Rfc should be closed. Note I've opened up a new Rfc, which presents the same options, but rather in a neutral style. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Update: The first Rfc has expired as no consensus for any of the 3 options. Furthermore, I've closed the second Rfc (that I had opened), per StAnselm's point, about "unnecessary verbiage".:) GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: This RfC should not be closed in isolation - there is also an associated merge discussion ongoing, and the two are closely related. (For example, a couple of votes in the merge discussion are apparently based on reasons presented in the previous RfC.) In my opinion, the new RfC simply adds to the considerable unnecessary verbiage on the page. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Further comment: The original RfC was closed as no consensus by the originator a few days ago, and this close has not been contested. It would be helpful if someone could close the merge discussion, though. StAnselm (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Notifying Jack Upland, as he's the merge nominator. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled about where this page is heading...--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My first choice is for the page to be deleted. My second choice is to split it up & merge its parts into the 2 articles you nominated to merge with. Most of all, let's hope the article-in-question won't be used as a vehicle for promoting the We don't know argument, across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your desire for deletion is fairly irrelevant given that you admitted that you couldn't be bothered figuring out how to nominate it for AfD. StAnselm (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not impossible for me to re-learn how. Deletion is an option, I haven't put aside. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 13:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the events be removed?
I'm requesting an admin or an experienced user to assess the consensus at the mentioned page. Mhhossein (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Consensus is to keep the information. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Penny
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Penny ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 02:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 02:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sicario (2015 film)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sicario (2015 film) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 02:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Alt-right
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alt-right ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 02:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 01:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Pepperdine University
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pepperdine University ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 13:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Séralini affair
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Séralini affair ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * not done as further edits seem to have overtaken the last participation in the RfC so as to make formal assessment unnecessary unless a participant requires. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions: "1. Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature? 2. Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?" The discussion seems contentious which is why I'm not closing it myself. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, its a hotly contested article in the GMO area that was part of a recent Arbcom case, and should be closed. I cant close it because of my involvement in that case, but even if I could I wouldnt as a NAC. AlbinoFerret  23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that Ncmvocalist is correct. Nobody seems to be edit-warring over those two questions, a lot has changed since then (more than 200 edits and work by User:SlimVirgin and User:Tryptofish, both of whom are skilled with this sort of problem), a practical compromise seems to be in place, and the person who started the RFC retired weeks ago and requested that his account be blocked.  The likely outcome is only to enshrine, as The Eternal Consensus™, the results of a single discussion about whether the words "peer-review" should appear in the article (current, stable state:  yes, but maybe not as many times as some anti-GMO POV pushers would like) and whether the articles should be used as primary sources (current, stable state:  the re-published one is cited as a source to say that it was re-published, and both versions are prominently linked as ==External links==, which is probably more than some pro-GMO POV pushers would like).  It would probably be better to leave this alone, and let editors use their best judgment over time.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ on the basis of the above comments. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 09:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Vladimir Putin
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Putin ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mhhossein (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 02:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Corporal punishment/Archive 3
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Corporal punishment/Archive 3 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 14:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Files for discussion/2016 January 18
Would an admin please close, or perhaps relist it if you think that is appropriate. It just seems to have been left open, and there hasn't been any new comments in over a month. Calathan (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - This has now been closed by User:Oiyarbepsy, so it looks like this is taken care of now. Calathan (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy
We need an uninvolved editor to close the RFC on this page, please. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 16:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 13:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Working on it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (ish). - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox film
Request for early closure, since participants have mutually agreed on a consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * notdone If you've agreed on a consensus, there's no need for formal closure. ~ RobTalk 13:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed notdone template to prevent archival by the bot. wrote: "Here is what the admin said: 'If you've agreed on a consensus, there's no need for formal closure. ~ RobTalk 13:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC). Now, according to WP:RfC, 'The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time,' whether a resolution was reached or not, and that 'it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor', whether admin or not (though since closings can be challenged, I've often found in practical terms it's better for an admin to do it). It goes on to say that we can choose to enclose the RfC discussion in a box 'with or without a closing statement.' Since our consensus affects a Project-wide template; since it might also affect Project:Television; and since we might like to be able to point to a single, proper, clearly labeled discussion in case there are challenges, I believe we should take the option of enclosing the discussion, using the following template that the WP:RfC makes available: [template] I would suggest that if there are no objections in the next, say, two days, that I and another of us ask an uninvolved editor to enclose this RfC discussion. I hope this sounds OK." It is clear that closure by an uninvolved editor is helpful even if there's an agreed on consensus ("since we might like to be able to point to a single, proper, clearly labeled discussion in case there are challenges"). I am therefore removing the notdone template so that the discussion will be closed by an uninvolved editor. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll close this in a moment just to clear it out of the queue, but please see WP:RFC, which says "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." (bold in the original). ~ RobTalk 02:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ actually. ~ RobTalk 02:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Georgiy Starostin
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Georgiy Starostin ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 02:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Deepak Chopra
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deepak Chopra ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 02:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy) ? Please assess the consensus on or after April 22, 2016 (30 days after the RfC was begun). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 03:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Peyton Manning
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peyton Manning ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 05:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Exponential function
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Exponential function ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 18:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Pryce
Talk:Tom Pryce is a five year old discussion that was never properly closed. The discussion's initiator claimed agreement in their favour after roughly two weeks, but I see many argument against their position which are apparently ignored. I have some concerns of it constituting a WP:local consensus, since there is a pre-existing consensus WikiProject consensus on how to deal with the raised type of issue. I would be greatly appreciated if an uninvolved person makes a proper assessment of the discussion. Tvx1 13:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Given WP:CCC, it's inappropriate to close a five-year old discussion and use that as evidence of consensus. Instead, I recommend starting a new RfC to assess the current consensus. ~ RobTalk 03:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4
The Graffiki DRV hasn't been closed, a week after the normal discussion period was over. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please help, because all of the regular DRV closers who are currently active have participated in the discussion, so it's not getting closed.— S Marshall T/C 17:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Real Robot
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Real Robot ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's an ongoing RM discussion below this RfC, and that RM asks essentially the same question in a more focused way. The closure of the RM will encompass this RfC. If you'd like to list the RM after an appropriate amount of time, feel free to do so. ~ RobTalk 18:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Files for discussion/2015 December 2
Would an admin assess the consensus at ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Steel1943 relisted the discussion to Files for discussion/2016 February 24. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hellelujah

 * Please disposition Talk:Hellelujah which has been open for over one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure Please link to the specific discussion you wish to be closed, not the talk page as a whole. ~ RobTalk 15:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, Talk:Hellelujah --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That was closed on the day it was opened. You'd need to start a new one.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , actually, if you look carefully, there is part of the discussion that is still open that should be closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be closed because it's not in an open discussion; it's just some remarks after closing. Dicklyon (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:European_Graduate_School
An uninvolved admin needed to close.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * archived as no consensus with opener's consent per this Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:David Irving/Archive 10
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Irving/Archive 10 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed long ago. Now at Village pump (policy)/Archive 127 Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1st century
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1st century ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ (non-admin closure) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 15:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:PBB
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:PBB ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: Please do read the discussion section on this one. There was a compromise solution proposed and generally accepted there that isn't reflected in the numerical vote. ~ RobTalk 02:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Closed as wait till later. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Stack Overflow
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stack Overflow ? The opening poster wrote: "Should this be included? Can Medium be considered a reliable source in this context, regardless of what WP:RS says about blogs?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ formally as the dispute has been resolved by editorial process (non-admin closure) . Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 08:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Template talk: Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
We need an uninvolved admin to close the RfC on whether or not the popular vote should be included in the template. That discussion is located here. Please note that this topic has also been discussed outside of the RfC. Thanks. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: I changed the link to the discussion in 's request because the section title has been changed to "Inclusion of popular vote". It's high time for an uninvolved admin to assess the situation and move to close. I hope it doesn't hurt that the discussion was not formally titled an RfC; the debate has been raging for months. — JFG talk 19:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pleading for closure again with previous discussions dating back to  for an edit war already raging earlier. This template is very visible, sitting as the infobox on one of the top 50 visited pages on Wikipedia (383,944 page views last week). A prompt closure would be most welcome during this relatively quiet period before the next voting spree next Tuesday. Thanks! — JFG talk 16:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by non-admin editor with rationale. — JFG talk 09:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ (non-admin closure) - no action needed, as the RfC was about adding a mention in a paragraph that disappeared since then. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 16:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ and closed as no consensus (non-admin closure) . Recommending to reopen as separate RfC since multiple questions were implicitly asked. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 12:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jennifer Lawrence
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ – It was a discussion, not a "formal-style" RfC, and it seems resolved. A close is redundant and unnecessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn (initiated on 17 February 2016)? The original RfC (initiated on 13 January 2016) was closed improperly and overturned here. The subsequent RfC was bot-removed as expired on 18 March 2016. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Daicaregos. We need closure. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I would close it as rough consensus for "England, UK", as a temporary measure pending the outcome of a more general discussion (either on British bios or on every kind of similar discussion for not-really-sovereign states), because arguments presented either for "England" or "United Kingdom" were very weak (the strongest being "it is what we used to do", which is not really compelling in an RfC that precisely questions what used to be done - especially since it was argued by both sides (!)). I also would encourage a separate discussion as to whether the current position matters for the "place of birth" (IMO it should not, the country of birth of Nicola Sturgeon should remain the same if she becomes UK PM of even PM of the Netherlands, but it seems others think it matters).
 * However, I think wiser to leave this highly contentious close to an admin, even though the consensus seems relatively clear to me. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 10:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Vyborg
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vyborg ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Maxinquaye
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maxinquaye ? See the subsection Talk:Maxinquaye. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Australian head of state dispute
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Australian head of state dispute ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ already by non-administrator User:BU Rob13. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 11:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Federal Way Public Academy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Federal Way Public Academy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅--GRuban (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Spoiler
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: I had asked an administrator with a history of being a good closer to close this one, since it's a complicated discussion about a guideline. The closer, I JethroBT, eventually had to decline due to a busy schedule. So I ask that the editor who eventually closes this uses a lot of care when weighing the opinions and evaluating the consensus or lack of consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 127
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 127 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 15:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 ? The opening poster wrote: "In an effort to end the Wikidrama about this issue: should the sentence "Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs, for $675,000, have become "a campaign issue"" be added back, or is there a better way to add this referenced info?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 15:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of living Medal of Honor recipients
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of living Medal of Honor recipients ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ (non-admin closure) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 15:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bernie Sanders
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bernie Sanders ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ (non-admin closure) . Not as contentious as one would expect it to be! Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 15:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917 ? See the subsection Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Jytdog. Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920
Respectfully request an uninvolved administrator please assess the proposal of uninvolved editors at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Only in death does duty end. Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920
Discuss seems to have reached a lull. Only comments in last few days are comments to make sure it doesn't get archived without admin action. only (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Euryalus. Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Sam Sailor. Omni Flames   let's talk about it  10:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.

 * Talk:Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., where an editor has specifically requested an admin of long standing and good experience in interpreting RMs. This RM is 4 weeks old, and has been at the tail of the backlog for several days already.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But since there don't seem to be any admins closing RM discussions, an experienced non-admin would be OK, I think. I don't see why this one is getting ignored for so long; the issue is spelled out pretty clearly, and someone just has to make a decision, so we can move on.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Fences and windows. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 ? See the subsection Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Vedas
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vedas ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach
Really need an administrator to close this one, because this was the third RfC on the same subject in 80 days, and a lot of unorthodox behavior is involved. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Oiyarbepsy. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Area of a disk
There's an RfC that I believe can be closed due to consensus (see my post in it at bottom for my summary of the RfC)...posting here as the RfC is reasonably contentious and it requires moving the name of the article...also, think a note should be placed in the TALK BOX of the article, as I explain in my summary post...if someone could take a look, see what they think...thanks.. 68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is far too soon to list an RfC at ANRFC, especially given there's no clear consensus at this time. Please wait until 30 days after the discussion began. ~ RobTalk 22:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland
Could someone close this please. The opposes and supports are equal and is in a highly disputed area but you might be able to suggest a way forward that avoids too much edit warring. Thanks Dmcq (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 01:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User pages
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * because a few closers are evaluating this discussion in the context of a larger RfC that dealt with many similar topics. It will be closed shortly. ~ RobTalk 06:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 20:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:State of Palestine
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:State of Palestine ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 20:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 20:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Schulze method
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Schulze method ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus already assessed by the involved editors and implemented. There's been absolutely no opposition to the solution they came up with since it was implemented on April 10. No independent closure needed. ~ RobTalk 20:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sex offender registries in the United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sex offender registries in the United States ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ (non-admin closure) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 11:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jean Lapierre
This needs a good, accurate closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This hasn't been open 30 days yet, and the consensus isn't strong enough to warrant early closure. ~ RobTalk 20:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * TIME SENSITIVE. PROMPT CLOSURE REQUESTED. A prompt closure here may reduce drama at a Deletion Review in progress, and it may avoid substantial waste of time on repeat process.


 * The RFC currently says it is relisted to obtain clearer consensus, but the "relisting" was added by a user who was previously blocked for abusively obstructing consensus regarding this subject. The "relisting" should not discourage closure if a closer finds that 42 days of discussion presents a sufficiently clear consensus.


 * There is no dispute that Earth Similarity Index (ESI) has sufficient sources to support its own article, but ESI has negligible scientific acceptance, and different sources use very different formulas to compute conflicting ESI values. The discussion is about various other disputed articles that were constructed and defined entirely around a single source's implementation ESI. Is it encyclopedic to build those other articles around ESI? Alsee (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You also forgot that the the "abusive" user also opened the RfC, not just relisted it. It was relisted because it was clear (to me and others) that at the time there was no clear consensus although that may be different now. Are those personal attacks really necessary in this post? You should also not be doing POV pushing here to get the closing admin to agree with you, states your arguments in the RfC please (which you already have). <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;">Davidbuddy9 <font style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF;"> Talk 20:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion ? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ <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  // 07:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:National Rifle Association
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:National Rifle Association ? The opening poster wrote: "Should the NRA article be placed into the Civil rights/liberties categories". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ The thread has already been closed by the proposer, (non-admin, ping) on WP:SNOW grounds. While I personally think closing while being involved when there are oppose !votes is inappropriate, especially without a descriptive rationale, I would have closed the same way, so leaving it closed is likely the best option.  Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 15:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I agree with you that it is better to have an uninvolved close, but was unaware that the RFC was listed here. If it had not been a clear WP:SNOW I would not have closed it, but the consensus was so overwhelming, I did not think it to be an issue. If you want to replace my close with your own, I would not have an objection. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah. My "I support the close" comment is a hedge against potential ANI fuss, not a "get off my close". Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 16:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ (non-admin closure) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 12:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive280
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive280 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Now at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive280. ~ RobTalk 12:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not archived at source, but there was a discussion at WP:AN about closure that concluded in a close. ~ RobTalk 15:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie Portman
Significant discussion also occurred prior to the RfC at Talk:Natalie Portman, initiated April 7, 2016. RfC initiated April 8, 2016. A number of editors have commented in both sections, but recently discussion has only involved two editors disagreeing about whether there is a consensus. Both of these editors would like a closure. Sundayclose (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional discussion regarding clarification of the subject can be seen at WP:AN/I and WP:NPOV. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that the report at ANI was closed with an instruction to come here, and that the discussion at NPOV talk page has one opinion besides Jack Sebastian's, with no additional comments for the past two weeks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Natalie Portman ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Debbie Does Dallas
This RfC has been open since 14 February has seen no activity for about 10 days. Since this deals with a contentious issue that is certain to come up again, it would be helpful if this was closed by a previously uninvolved admin (or possibly more than one). before closing this RfC, it would be useful to read through the discussion below and to have a thorough understanding of how embedding files works on Wikipedia. Right Hand Drive (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Videos/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Videos/Archive 1 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Requesting closure on this RfC which was initiated on 11 March and hasn't seen any participation lately. I feel like I should mention something about the "validity" of the RfC since discussion sprawled a bit... So without getting into the meat of the RfC.... A couple users raised concerns about the venue -- a discussion which extended to user talk pages and VPP (this thread). Others weighing in on that matter seemed satisfied with the fact that it was (and still is) listed on centralized discussion and was advertised on VPP twice and the objecting editors were invited to move the discussion to VPP (though that didn't happen). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 04:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Note: This comment was placed on a duplicate RFC listing. The duplicate listing was deleted and this comment was moved here by Alsee (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Hut 8.5. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive925
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive925 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Ritchie333. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Undeniable (Hellyeah album)
Please disposition the speedy deletion request at Undeniable (Hellyeah album). --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2016 March
We currently have two move review discussions waiting closer since March 2016.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested moves
What if all the admins who are willing to close RMs have already commented? A couple in the backlog are 5 weeks old tomorrow. Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
There are a number of recent discussions at Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 (including maybe these two discussions as well?) that need to be closed, and, given the nature of some of the discussions and the fact that the page in question is under discretionary sanctions, I think it would be best if an administrator (that has ideally not participated in any recent discussions on that talk page) close those discussions. Thanks in advance for any help that you can provide. Guy1890 (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * | This discussion on the same talk page is in desperate need of resolution. One editor seems to have made it his mission to include potentially contentious information, and has in fact made it clear he will be adding the information without formal consensus. S51438 (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have closed one of the discussions mentioned by Guy1890 because it was repetitive. S51438 (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is an appropriate request. I'm the editor they're referring to. This is the contentious information they felt was too unreliable for Wikipedia (it needs work and expansion, obviously): Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, fraud and irregularity allegations. The issue now concerns how if at all to link from the primaries article to that. If they feel that arbitral remediation is necessary to close a thread that will be reopened to that limited purpose, I support that. If they want to leave the same thread open and continue it solely in that purpose [of whether and how to link] I'm fine with that too. We had all agreed consensus was against inclusion before they asked for arbitration (so I find this confusing), but the question has also now changed with the creation of a separate article. Michael Sheflin (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "We had all agreed consensus was against inclusion before they asked for arbitration" is nonsense, but anyone reviewing the history of the page above can see that plainly. Guy1890 (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You can tell I'm gaming the system because I transparently provided all relevant information. "You cannot merely exclude information of public interest, validly cited. That's the concern. If your question is what does this debate have to do with the page... there does appear to be consensus, at present, against including information on this page. There's no reason given for that so it's not clear to me where you find consensus based on legitimate concerns. But that's fine."  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADemocratic_Party_presidential_primaries%2C_2016&type=revision&diff=722964246&oldid=722962140 Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)  *I most sincerely apologize.  That was from nearly an hour and a half afterward [when making the statement you found to be nonsense, I was under the impression I had posted that before you requested this; I apologize].  "Look I'll acknowledge you've all won. You've abused and misused the consensus-building process in bad faith to exclude, on hypothetical possibilities, the possibility of valid information." [03:26, 28 May 2016] (this was my acknowledgment that consensus ran against inclusion; but I - and I stand by this - think that misunderstands how Wikipedia works);  "Perhaps this consensus attempt has determined that [for now] no section should be added to accommodate the allegations - or perhaps that is not what it has determined. However, that cannot then be used to simply exclude otherwise valid information from Wikipedia."  [07:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)].  Regardless of how closely you scrutinized what I said (bc I'll acknowledge my point may not have come across), I think this is kind of a waste of time.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Request withdrawn since all of the originally-highlighted talk page discussions have been archived at this late date. Thanks anyways. Guy1890 (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Collapse top
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Collapse top ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC) done Tazerdadog (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ted Cruz
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ted Cruz ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC) done Tazerdadog (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:History of South America
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of South America ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done ... by Cunard, in fact. --GRuban (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Deryck C. 10:53, 16 June 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 --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry ? Thanks.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done &mdash; Music1201  talk  22:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Rfd2
Would someone please close Template talk:Rfd2? Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 02:15, 17 June 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) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done  Omni Flames ( talk ) 02:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Four Noble Truths
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Four Noble Truths ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * already done. Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
This is an RfC about Wikidata fields in infoboxes. The 30-day period will run at 20:59 (UTC). I'll start work on closing this one at that time. Co-closers are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've boxed it up and asked for additional comments. Co-closers still welcome, for now. Unwatching here. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Dank. There is further discussion at Administrators' noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 12
This discussion needs an experienced closer. ~ RobTalk 05:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hilton Worldwide
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Hilton Worldwide ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just looking for a place to request help closing this discussion. I'd like to second User:Cunard's request. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: This has been addressed. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Let us close it then, shall we? Already done by non-admin (courtesy ping, in case I missed something).  Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 16:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Top Model (Scandinavia)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Top Model (Scandinavia) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 16:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion ? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 Stanley Cup Finals
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 Stanley Cup Finals ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Australian Ambassadors to Kazakhstan
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Princess Beatrice of York
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Princess Beatrice of York ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts ? 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 11:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:World Wide Web
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:World Wide Web ? The question posed was: "Should Robert Cailliau be listed in the lead as equal co-inventor of the web, alongside Tim Berners-Lee? There is edit-warring going on at present to push this into the article.  (and others)." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done – EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Page mover
It's been a month, and the RfC has expired. Need an admin to close the RfC and potentially open a phab ticket. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 18:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done by — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 15:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups
Would an admin/experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups ? Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done – see below. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done by administrator User:Doug Weller. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 17:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And it's a dupe. – once again, Cunard doesn't check before spamming ANRFC with new entries... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 21
This needs an accurate analysis before a closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is now located in an archive at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 21. Someone willing to dig into one of the lamest contentious discussions of all time should assess whether it's worth dragging out of an archive or not. ~ RobTalk 13:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since numerous editors considered the discussion worth discussion, and since George Ho wants an accurate summary of the discussion, I agree with George Ho's request for closure. That some editors consider it "lame" does not detract from other editors' considering it important and worthy of closure (evidenced by the extensive, passionate discussion). Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How about method 2? Or another method: click "edit" button at the Archive page and write the rationale. --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This doesn't need a close, being effectively moot. RM has continued to follow MOS on this, and despite a few voices in support of sweeping change to treatment of short prepositions on Wikipedia (even having a magically special variant rule for songs), nothing like a consensus arose for this, the matter was sourced into the ground (both as to what different genres of sources do, and why WP uses the rule it does, in keeping with the centrist, non-extreme treatment in RS), and whatever stress and productivity drain was involved in the discussion, the qualify of the relevant RM discussions has improved, with actual examination of whether something's a preposition or not, instead of rants along the lines of "since Rolling Stone writes it this way, WP must also". There really is nothing to do. Not every discussion needs a formal closure, and a conclusion of "there isn't a clear consensus to change anything" certainly doesn't need one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination I hope a fresher discussion should be more constructive than this one. It was less managed and disorganized. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:MDMA/Archive 7
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MDMA/Archive 7 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1 metre
Would an editor please assess the consensus at this RfC at Talk:1_metre ? It is not extremely contentious but there is no large support for a single action. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 08:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:David Jolly
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Jolly ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:John Carter (film)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John Carter (film) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done by .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of youngest birth mothers
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of youngest birth mothers ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

30/500 discussion at ANI
This discussion needs an experienced closer quickly; it involves the application of a new protection level to address an ongoing issue of disruption. ~ RobTalk 03:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

DoneTazerdadog (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Potato chip
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Potato chip ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Potato chip
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Potato chip ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Tazerdadog. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4 ? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Mdann52. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cary Grant
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cary Grant ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * done Rebb  ing  15:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Giraffe
This RfC is more than thirty days old, and Legobot has deleted the RfC template, but the discussion has not been formally closed. Comments have generally tended in a certain direction, but many have been somewhat equivocal ("It depends"), so a formal judgment seems desirable. <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 14:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Kharkiv07  ( T ) 03:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Stanley Milgram
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stanley Milgram ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph Conrad
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joseph Conrad ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Group of Eight/Archive 2
Would an uninvolved editor please take at look at a merge discussion at Talk:Group of Eight/Archive 2 and judge if consensus has been achieved. If consensus is Yes then please close the discussion and I will merge. If consensus is No then I won't! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard ? See the closure request at Administrators' noticeboard: This discussion was archived without ever being actioned by admins- the consensus seems to have been for a topic ban, but we need an admin to rule on it, or unarchive it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree this should be closed. I would unarchive it and close it myself but I was involved in the discussion. <b style="color:Chocolate">HighInBC</b> Need help?  01:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Keilana. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks ? While it has been less than the required 30 days, see the discussion here which supports someone closing it. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 21:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:YouTube
An uninvolved but competent editor is needed. George Ho (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:YouTube ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have closed the discussion on the talk page, as a general consensus was reached to keep the table in a collapsed format. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as done for the bot. Thank you,, for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem
Please formally close this Rfc I opened, because it is about a contentious area. Debresser (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Black supremacy
Some requests have been made at this RfC to have an experienced editor read over, and close the discussion. Thanks in advance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * no real need to weigh the rfc as has become moot at this point..there was an afd that resulted in keep but led to the article being hugely altered to the point that the discussion is now irrelevant..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Internet fraud/Archives/2016
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Internet fraud/Archives/2016 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Anarchism sidebar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Anarchism sidebar ? There is a clear consensus to include anarcho-capitalism in the template, but the consensus is not as clear on where it should be placed in the template. Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Emma Watson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emma Watson ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. Neutralitytalk 04:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as done for the bot. Thank you,, for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done Kharkiv07  ( T ) 01:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion and detailed analysis of the arguments, ! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:European migrant crisis/Archive 2
This needs a conclusion. George Ho (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the sake of templating: . Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 17:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Dionysodorus (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lone wolf (terrorism)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lone wolf (terrorism) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting
. Last !vote was five days ago. Thanks. - MrX 17:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Pokémon Sun and Moon
Requesting a formal closure to this discussion so the consensus can be enforced. czar 14:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Done The discussion led to the Japanese text remaining in the lede. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Armenian Genocide
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Armenian Genocide ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done by User:Maunus - marking for the bot. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics
Someone familiar with comic books might be best for this, but that might not be necessary: After five contentious weeks, an overwhelming majority of experienced, veteran WikiProject Comics editors all agree on one side, and only one person, who has rejected two offers of compromise, remains arguing the other side. It's getting a little rancorous, with the same arguments being repeated, so hopefully someone can close it. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I humbly ask that someone please close this quickly, as, after more than five weeks, it has become increasingly rancorous, with verbal attacks and name-calling. For the good of WikiProject Comics, please close it soon.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

?

Done. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Matrix
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Matrix ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen a couple admins state they don't really look at these requests these days since a couple users started adding them en masse. So I thought I'd add here that this is one that really does need admin attention given the potential implications for interpreting WP:GENDERID and WP:BLP. The article is also subject to very frequent edit warring over a long period of time on the basis of what this RfC seeks to address. There are decent arguments on all sides, but there really needs to be an outcome. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 01:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done for the bot. I'm not an admin, but I hope I've provided a reasonable summary of the consensus there. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gary Cooper
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gary Cooper ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done This was closed by User:maunus. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting
I thought about requesting closure of three in one section, but I am not confident about one person reviewing all three. The topic of the discussion is a little more complex. --George Ho (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the sake of templating: . Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 17:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Done by User:Maunus - marking for the bot. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting
I thought about requesting closure of three in one section, but I am not confident about one person reviewing all three. The topic of the discussion is kinda simplistic, yet integrity is involved. --George Ho (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the sake of templating: . Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 17:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Done by User:Maunus - marking for the bot. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting
I thought about requesting closure of three in one section, but I am not confident about one person reviewing all three. The topic of the discussion is some sort of classification in prose. --George Ho (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the sake of templating: . Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 17:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Done by User:Maunus - marking for the bot. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chris Kyle
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chris Kyle ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Consensus was reached to not include material from unofficial, non-reliable sources. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Dionysodorus (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Multi-sport event
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Multi-sport event ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Dionysodorus (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of world snooker champions
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of world snooker champions ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Dionysodorus (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Falklands War
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Falklands War ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Dionysodorus (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done. That was hard. Deryck C. 12:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Common law
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Common law ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done by SMcCandlish. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Time (Electric Light Orchestra album)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Time (Electric Light Orchestra album) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Time travel in fiction
Please close the merge discussion of time loop and time slip into time travel in fiction. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 06:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:European Graduate School
I make a formal request for closure of this RfC. I believe there is consensus around the proposal made by Special:Contributions/87.162.74.84. 79.64.199.8 (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That "consensus" was suddenly established in a later section to make an edit that basically runs against the RfC proposed (and majority-supported) version looks very dubious to me, to say the least. It is unclear if you request the close of the RfC that really runs or of a section that is not a proper WP:RFC. I smell something fishy with that close request.  Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 16:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that the later section is part of the original RfC. See . 79.64.199.8 (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Is closure still required on this, or can I delist it? It has now been listed so long that it has been allowed to be archived. I will delist if no objections arise. Dionysodorus (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 14
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 14 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This has now been allowed to be archived. I see little point in closing and will delist this if no objections. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed draftspace deletion RFC
Would someone (not necessarily an admin) close the RFC about a proposed draftspace deletion? (archive 128)  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (finally) Dionysodorus (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:NHL 15
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:NHL 15 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Dionysodorus (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Judith Wilyman PhD controversy/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Judith Wilyman PhD controversy/Archive 1 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Dionysodorus (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Dionysodorus (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your hard work at WP:ANRFC, ! Cunard (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 05:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed assessment of the consensus, ! Cunard (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)