Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 22

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 84
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 84 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 09:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 5
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 5 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Done jc37 09:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union
Given the timely and contentious nature of the topic, I humbly request closure by an uninvolved administrator of this discussion about moving United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union to Brexit. — JFG talk 05:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 07:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922
I am requesting a non-involved, experienced administrator to close this clarification request because it has potentially wiki-wide (or at least very broad) implications. It was opened 30 days ago and has received no further comment for the last 24 days. DrChrissy (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Copying my comment from here. I think this is a reasonable request for closure. I read the ANI discussion and found that several admins and editors believe that edits to articles on human anatomy with no health or medical aspects are not covered by the topic ban. Based on the heated and accusatory comments by several of the involved editors in the discussion, it is clear that to avoid conflict and doubt DrChrissy should get a clear ruling from an uninvolved admin as to whether he can edit those articles. WP:ANRFC is the correct place to request closure. A request at WP:AN or WP:ANI will be archived without action if an admin does not act on it in time. That no timely action has been taken does not mean DrChrissy should not get closure. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Done jc37 08:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive282
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive282 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Done (Or at least, closed...) - jc37 07:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chrysler
There's currently an edit war between the RfC participants over whether to close or extend the RfC beyond 30 days. Can a non-involved, preferably Admin, editor intervene and resolve one way or the other? At the moment it's "closed" because I have not reverted the last revert, but I expect it will get re-opened, then re-closed, again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Formal closure by a neutral, uninvolved administrator under WP:CLOSE is respectfully requested, as neutrality is at issue, and the discussion has at times been contentious. We may expect the closing statement to be closely scrutinized. RfC launched 23 March 2016, most recent comment 1 May 2016. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Any objections to delisting this one? or does it still need an admin to resolve it? It's been sitting here for two months, and the RfC in question seems to be firmly consigned to the archive now. I'll delist if no objections. Dionysodorus (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think a close would be helpful to determine whether there is a consensus to add the material to the article. And if there is no consensus, a close could help participants frame a second RfC that addresses the concerns in the first RfC to hopefully gain consensus for a differently worded addition. But I will defer to the two editors who requested closure, and, for their input. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I pulled it back from the archive; it's back at Talk:Chrysler. User:Springee, who had been unilaterally trying to close the RFC, sent it to the archives by changing the archive settings from 300d to 30d. I think it would have been more appropriate to wait for neutral third party to close the RFC, rather than set up a bot to archive it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done &mdash; Music1201  talk  18:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Please close this RfC, which has run its course, and which I've just had to save from bot archival. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: . It's not all that long, as these things go. The consensus, on a policy, evidence, and reasoned-argument basis, is pretty easy to determine despite the lack of a snowball in either direction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please, please, please! Close this ancient RfC. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can close it if it "must" be closed, but as I just noted there, I don't think it's closeable in its current state. - jc37 05:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look, ! It's nice to see you again at WP:ANRFC. :) Cunard (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a quick look myself, and it appear that the discussion
 * Is not formatted as an actual WP:RFC, and so among other things never went onto the RfC lists
 * Is not located at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, where it probably should be
 * I surmise this is why jc37 is not wanting to close it. I have made the following counter-suggestion to jc37:
 * Let's let the discussion at Village pump (policy) go into the archive.
 * I'll open a new proper RfC at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. I'll summarize the results of Village pump (policy) in a few paragraphs, along with the names and headcount of the participants, and a pointer to the permalink of the full discussion, for the edification of any new participants and the person closing this new, formal, correctly formatted and placed RfC when it expires.
 * Does this sound reasonable to everyone, or is this too much work or duplication of effort or otherwise not a good solution? Herostratus (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm uninvolved, but that sounds good to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

done, it is all now at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, so we can delete or archive this thread here. Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but done should probably be written for the bot. Dionysodorus (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship ? See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Jc37. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC) done— S Marshall T/C 19:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)
Can an experienced editor help assess the consensus at the above page ? A simple number count indicates "include" is favoured, but some editors give vastly different rationales even if they arrive at the same conclusion, such that I am not sure what should be done. Thanks! Banedon (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC) done— S Marshall T/C 20:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:President of Brazil
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:President of Brazil ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 129
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Village pump (policy)/Archive 129 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * doneTazerdadog (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas MacArthur/Archive 5
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Douglas MacArthur ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 15:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 21
All four "regular" RfD admins have chimed in on this one, so it'll likely sit in the backlogs for a while unless an uninvolved admin attends to it soon. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: Relisted at Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 6. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Thryduulf. Deryck C. 14:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Isaac Barrow
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Isaac Barrow ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done— S Marshall T/C 19:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal
Some people want this closed as soon as possible, but I believe that an uninvolved but skilled person must determine the consensus. --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, now is not the time to close it, but I'll leave the request open, just in case. George Ho (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the sake of templating: . Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This has now been open for almost three weeks, we're getting a drip-feed of perhaps one or two comments per day after the initial 15 or 20 comments per day, could we now please assess this for closure. Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As the initiator of the RfC I endorse this request for closure. There are increasingly few comments being received and it's been a while since a new argument was presented. A formal close of this is needed as the are strong views both for and against. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This discussion appears to still be ongoing. Might as well at least wait the two more days for the full 30 for the rfc. - jc37 08:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * well here we are, would you, or someone else, now please close this. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You know you will not get a faster close just by insisting, right? This place is usually severely backlogged (though User:Jc37, praised be them, eradicated the backlog recently, it will probably rear its ugly head again), and your RfC is (1) complex, (2) important, and (3) attracted a lot of answers. You might think that (2) should accelerate the close, but actually it will not, because the closer will need greater care to make sure nothing was missed and the closing statement is adequate.
 * I close a few of these, and I go for the low-hanging fruit - small RfCs on individual articles where the consensus is fairly obvious. In all likelihood I am the closer with the weakest Wiki-reputation (non-admin, and a relatively low edit count) here, but I suspect there are others with the same sorting key. Just to put things in perspective, the  template turns red after 60 days.  Tigraan Click here to contact me 20:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the initial request was made about two weeks ago, nothing has changed since then, a few more comments but nothing substantive. If someone says they'll leave it until the 30 days are up, I'd expect them to honour that.  Of course, I understand that other things (e.g. real life) take priority, but I also note that Jc37 has edited since the time I pinged him/her so it's a bit of a shame that we're where we are.  Never mind the template turning red, let's just get this out of the way please.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I had planned on coming back to this if no one else had, but needless to say, even after a few read throughs so far, this isn't a quick close by any means. If no one else has by then, I'll likely have more time later tonight/overnight. - jc37 21:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, no-one had suggested that it would be a quick decision, but thankfully we have someone prepared to step up right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. : ) - jc37 21:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Four days passed; Martin hasn't done the actual closure yet. Shall we need another volunteer not involved in ITN and its sub-functions? George Ho (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Four whole days? Wow. That's like, forever. Why is actual italicised? Shall we need to be a bit patient, or is this somehow urgent? Begoon &thinsp; talk  14:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This one appears to have been done by User:Gnangarra, so Done for the bot. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Led Zeppelin
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Led Zeppelin ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done by . --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics) ? Please consider Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Dionysodorus (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Multiple issues
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Multiple issues ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 10:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Alfred North Whitehead/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Alfred North Whitehead/Archive 1 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Dionysodorus (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to mark this as "no closure needed". An IP user has pruned the list in the last few weeks. Deryck C. 12:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but no harm in closing it anyway, in case someone decides to edit war them all back in again. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 4
The above discussion needs an experienced closer to assess consensus. If you're not familiar with how to implement TfD closures, feel free to either ask me first or make the close and ping me to take care of any maintenance work it creates. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done. Deryck C. 10:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy
There has been a discussion about whether the controversy merits its own article, should be merged into 2016 Republican National Convention, or put back into Melania Trump (from whence it was spun out). The discussion has only been going on for four days, but several participants have been bold and merged the content, saying they see a consensus other editors do not see. Would appreciate an outsider's eyes. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done. The bold attempt to redirect was a bit cowboy, but given the locus of the discussion I think no plausible outcome will retain the article. Deryck C. 09:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines/Archive 1 ? When considering the collapsed "Arguments from prior discussions" section, the discussion's consensus is less clear than just looking at the "Support (yes, it is/may be notable)" and "Oppose (no, it is not notable)" sections. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Deryck C. 16:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Southern Levant
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Southern Levant ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 18:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie Portman
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Natalie Portman ? Please consider Talk:Natalie Portman in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 14:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an uninvolved editor please evaluate the consensus and close this discussion regarding creating a new temporary CSD criterion? Thank you. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not done for now. See discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/CXT. Mz7 (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2016 July 21
Would an admin assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2016 July 21 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 16:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Malia Bouattia
This RfC needs a closure. It was started on 20 June, and the consensus (if any) is unclear. Orthogonal1 (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 14:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Karen Stollznow
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Karen Stollznow ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced this discussion will benefit from formal closure at this stage. If it becomes more of a straw poll with a small, finite number of well-defined options, then an RfC-style closure would be appropriate. Deryck C. 14:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done for the bot. I will bring this back later if it has more participation. It is already "a straw poll with a small, finite number of well-defined options" though there is little participation; see for example Proposal 2 and Proposal 3. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced this needs formal closure. Deryck C. 14:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Closed as "There is no consensus in this RfC to rename ARM big.LITTLE to ARM Big.Little. I recommend opening a Requested moves discussion at Talk:ARM big.LITTLE if any editors want to further discuss the name further." This RfC is equivalent to a Requested moves discussion. All WP:RM discussions are closed, as should this article renaming RfC. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Ethnic slurs/Archive 1
This is a rather heated topic which seems to have exhausted itself and a non-involved neutral admin is required to assess whether or not there is consensus (and what that consensus is) and possible next steps for resolution. Electoralist (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This RFC has been closed by User:Deryck Chan. Thanks. Electoralist (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done, then. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Whoa, hold on a second. I thought WP:Consensus was *not* supposed to be about minority/majority votes, but finding common grounds for agreement and (if that doesn't work) the strength of arguments. I find this outcome to be inconsistent with Wikipedia's stated policies, and with all relevant facts.ChronoFrog (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Michel Foucault
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michel Foucault ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 11:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Serial killer
This RfC expired some days ago and needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC) done by Sigma. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Michelle Tyler
I have withdrawn my deletion request for this article since new evidence has come to my attention. Please close as keep. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 21:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 21:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll
This RfC concerning a new usergroup has expired. May an uninvolved editor please assess and close the discussion? Thanks, — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 20:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

done Tazerdadog (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/Archive 7
Four votes (3 to 1 in favor of the change), 30 days passed, RfC expired... closure? consensus determined? Dan56 (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (formal closure wasn't strictly necessary, but I closed it anyway.) Tazerdadog (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
There are about 60 open AfDs in the backlog, some dating back to over two weeks. I guess admins are humans too who need summer vacation ;) but some cleanup would be nice. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The backlog is back to acceptable levels now, thanks! --HyperGaruda (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as done - the backlog is zero (discussions marked "old" by the AfD bot - over 8 days old) as of now! Deryck C. 20:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Move Review
Move_review has three cases that have gone for more than a week, and should be closed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 23:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy
The RFC template just expired after hitting 30 days. Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close the discussion at Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Poking people on this - this needs to be closed up. I'd do it, but I've already closed a significant discussion on the topic.Tazerdadog (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take this if it's still open at about 9am UTC tomorrow. It's a couple of hours' reading and digesting that I would have done today if I'd seen it earlier but I won't have time to do it justice before bed today. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Indian massacres
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Indian massacres ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Σ. Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jaws (film)
A short discussion that has run over a month. As the person who started the discussion it would probably be inappropriate if I closed it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling
RfC expired but was never closed.LM2000 (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers ? The opening poster wrote: "Is there sufficient evidence supported by reliable sources to add Ethnic hatred or Race hatred (both link to the same article) to the Motive section of the Info Box?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done KDS4444 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Aptronym
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Aptronym ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done KDS4444 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request of DYK participation restrictions
Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 127 has been running for a week and new comments have petered out. It requires an uninvolved editor's pair of eyes to close the discussion and announce the outcome. Deryck C. 15:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Closed Hobit (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as done for bot purposes. Deryck C. 13:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion
The 30 days runs in about 24 hours. I'm asking for 3 closers, until we get 3 or until a week goes by. If we get 3, great. If we get 1 or 2, I'll probably ask them a couple of questions. If we get 2, I'll probably offer to join them. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the sake of templating: ., your request for multiple closers sounds weird (how are they going to coordinate, if the point is precisely that they are relatively independent from each other?) but well, whatever works. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Replying in the same-named section at AN. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, no replies for a week, I'm out. Unwatching. - Dank (push to talk) 10:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The request doesn't seem weird to me – when performed, it increases the credibility of the closure. I think how it works is a group of designated closers (usually admins or bureaucrats) discuss how the discussion should be closed either on-wiki or off-wiki (through email or IRC) and then collaborate on a closing statement that they all sign. Such a system isn't unprecedented, especially for particularly contentious discussions: see Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 (closed by 4 administrators) and Bureaucrat discussion. Mz7 (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it seems reasonable to me but I just asked about the "how". I live and learn. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As no one else came forward to form a committee, I've close this myself. Mdann52 (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I have reopened it. Thanks for trying but this was contentious and there was significant opinion that it is best left for an admin (or a team as suggested above). &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I can try to close this if wanted, but the reason I skipped over it my first time through this page is that I've stated in several places that my understanding of the current (prior to whatever this discussion's result is) consensus is that nac cannot close discussions as delete due to not being able to implement a delete close. I believe I've been in at least one discussion where I supported that status quo. I'm not "involved" in this discussion, and I don't think I would be biased in the close, but I wanted to express that disclaimer first before offering to close this. Please feel free to let me know what you think. If you'd like my help, I'm happy to, if you'd prefer not, I'm fine with that too : ) - jc37 21:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC) - While this is all still true, still, I think I'll recuse myself in this case. - jc37 01:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * My two cents is that the idea of a 3-person jury for closing very important and/or difficult discussions is a good idea. I've done it myself and it worked. Rather than any discussion or coordination being needed, you pick three people at random (one of them can be yourself I guess), contact them to see if they will do it, set a 24-hour or so window, and each "votes" their decision with a couple paragraphs or whatever showing their reasoning. Then as soon as all three have voted their decision you just total the votes, its 2-1 or 3-0, and you make the actual close which is just the technical counting of the votes of the three closers.


 * I would say it would be better to set this up ahead of time though. But it could still be done now, right now, and its good to do new things especially if they're sensible and have been shown to be workable, and fortune favors the brave. Go for it. (I'm not saying the committee/discussion way isn't also a good way maybe.) (Also for a question like this it would be a very good idea IMO to include at least one non-admin on the "jury", for both good procedural and political reasons.)Herostratus (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Just noting that I'm willing to close almost any discussion that I'm not involved in (I'm involved in this one) as part of one of these committees. Anyone can ping me on my talk page to ask me to participate.  Perhaps we should have a sign-up page somewhere to randomly select from?  Tazerdadog (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It just occurs to me to point out that we have three people here - User:Jc37, User:Herostratus, and User:Tazerdadog - who would apparently be willing to constitute a jury. So these three people (one admin and two non-admins) could go ahead and do that. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not me, I voted. Herostratus (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, and Tazerdadog said the same actually - I misread you both. So ignore what I just said please. Dionysodorus (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW I'm willing to take part in a 3-person jury as an uninvolved non-admin. I'm an active page mover and have a reasonable reputation for working towards consensus in the frame of policy. I've had the opportunity to adjudicate contentious situations before, including digesting walls of text and giving due weight to succinct as well as verbose arguments, and I came to for closing such debates in a way that obviously couldn't please everyone but was deemed fair. Ping me if/when the process gets going. — JFG talk 14:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK well I don't know... as far as I'm concerned you'd be hired. I consider myself fair minded and there's no real reason why I couldn't "hire" two more closers, and then close (but not decide) the discussion with Archivetop and archivebottom, then as soon as all three closers have made their decision (or even when two have, if they've decided the same way) do the actual close just based on their decision.


 * However, all this is going to seem new and odd enough without having someone who's voted being involved in any way shape or form. People will talk. So c'mon, let's have some uninvolved admin step forward here and "hire" JFG and two other people and do as I've outlined. For that person there won'd be much hard work. How to "hire" the 3 closers is up to them... I an envisioning generating some random numbers and applying to the lists of editors or admins, or just closing your eyes and pointing, or something like that... or maybe two more stalwarts will apply as JFG here did... let's do it! I'm sorry I feel I have to disqualify myself from the entire process, purely for the politics of the optics. Herostratus (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Link to closure review: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive282. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Surprised this is still open. Am happy to volunteer as a closer of this debate, alongside anyone else who wants to take part. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Poking people on this - this needs to be closed. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * has made a closing statement at the RfC. As the two other editors who have volunteered to close the RfC, and  would you also make your close statements at the RfC? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me, I was not aware this was listed here. If an admin or a committee or Jimbo or whatever want to review my close, I don't object. Ivanvector 🍁  (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done — JFG talk 09:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done Hobit (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is a non-admin closure appropriate here? It's hardly a SNOW case, and I raised some concerns about the legitimacy of the RfC to begin with. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * NAC seems fine to me here. It was fundamentally a content dispute, requiring no admin tools to implement the decision.  If you have concerns with the substance of the close, you are free to start a thread to challenge the closure.  Non-admins can close threads that would not qualify for SNOW.  Tazerdadog (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review
Deletion review/Log/2016 August 2 is still open and the regular DRV closers have all participated. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done (not by me...) Hobit (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump
Can an editor or admin assess this RfC for a WP:SNOW close? LavaBaron (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Not snowball though. Deryck C. 17:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, kindly, Deryck. LavaBaron (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Isaidnoway challenged it on the grounds that it's been less than 24 hours. I didn't check how long the RfC had been open when I closed it, but since Isaidnoway asked, I think I should leave it open for at least a few days before trying to close it again. To be honest, I don't think a cross-posted RfC was the right format for this discussion... Deryck C. 18:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, seems reasonable. Thanks, Deryck. LavaBaron (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually done this time. Deryck C. 13:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Karla Lane
Needs closure from an uninvolved admin.    09:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * MBisanz decided to relist it. Come back next week. Marking as not done for bot Deryck C. 13:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:12 Years a Slave (film)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:12 Years a Slave (film) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:White savior narrative in film
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:White savior narrative in film ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Speedy
This may be the wrong place for such a post, but there are a huge number of unopposed CFDS nominations dating back to August 6. P p p er y (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done By Tavix a while ago. P p p er y  (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Done188.174.89.135 (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 128
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Sam Walton (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kristina Rose
Has been open for almost a month; needs assessment from an uninvolved admin.    13:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar
Request a none involved admin look at closing this RFC and (if they can) decipher the mess as to what it actually concluded. WCM email 21:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Kudpung. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies
Any brave soul want to take a wack at this? It's been open about 6 weeks. I don't think it's urgent, but could use a look over.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh well.188.174.88.23 (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Snuge purveyor (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album) ? Canvassing concerns were raised at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done Drmies (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested moves
There is now a pretty significant backlog building at Requested moves. Oddly, some of these haven't even been relisted (which means even non-Admins aren't looking at them...), but have been sitting around for 2 weeks or more. Also, oddly, some of the ones that I just looked at are WP:SNOW results, so I'm not sure why they haven't been moved, except that I guess an Admin hasn't looked at them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done – looks like the backlog was finally whittled down to a manageable non-backlog... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sean Whalen
Has currently been open for a full month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * close by Seraphimblade. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Abkhazia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abkhazia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done Rhoark (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Singla
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Singla ? There is an edit war over the outcome of the RfC regarding whether the page is a disambiguation page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Rajka Baković
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rajka Baković ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done Rhoark (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Earthquake prediction
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Earthquake prediction ? See the subsection Talk:Earthquake prediction, where a participant expressed a desire for closure: "Is that a possible outcome: no closure at all, or a 'no consensus' close to the RFC, after all this discussion? Sigh... I was at least hoping that a close might decide whether 'natural time' and the VAN prediction of 2008 can be mentioned in the article." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done Rhoark (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation ? The previous RfC was at Village pump (policy)/Archive 129. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done Rhoark (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done by User:Σ. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done for the bot. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Novak Djokovic
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Novak Djokovic?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just here to request this to see that it has already been done. I endorse this request. 89.164.194.127 (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * done for the bot. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * done for the bot. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Karla Lane
This was relisted a week ago but there still is no consensus. For at least three reasons I can't close it as such myself (lol), so I request an uninvolved admin to do the honors.    22:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done by Ymblanter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Doctor Who (series 9) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * not done It seems to be an unstructured airing of grievances, now dormant, with nothing to be gained brining it back from automated archive. Rhoark (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Rolfing/Archive 4
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rolfing/Archive 4 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done by Guy/JzG. Rhoark (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Assault rifle
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Assault rifle ? My RfC close of this discussion was contested. I considered this an uncontroversial, "consensus is clear" close, which has turned out to be an incorrect assumption so I have undone my close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If we could hurry this one along that would be nice.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done Rhoark (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Monosodium glutamate
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Monosodium glutamate ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Done

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive283
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive283 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 06:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict
An outdated merger discussion from April 2016.GreyShark (dibra) 14:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC) done AIR corn (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:B. Alan Wallace
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:B. Alan Wallace ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

done AIR corn (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 26
Would an experienced editor, preferably someone who doesn't have strong feelings for or against Donald Trump (does such a person exist?), please assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump? Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * not done Not yet 30 days old (started 25 August 2016) and comments are still incoming.  Sandstein   20:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 5
An uninvolved admin is needed to close this RfC, which was initiated over a month ago. Neutralitytalk 14:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC on removal of hidden comment
Closure by an uninvolved admin is needed at Talk:Gustav Holst, please. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done Rhoark (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Iraq War
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iraq War ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC) done AIR corn (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done by Tazerdadaog. Rhoark (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Unseen character
Will an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Unseen character? (This issue has been contentious, and an administrative close might be desirable.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Dennis Brown. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Extraterrestrial atmosphere
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Extraterrestrial atmosphere ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 16:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

RevDel amendment
This proposal for amendment of the RevDel guidelines has been open for more than a month. Currently 100% of !votes are in favor of adopting the amendment with a thorough discussion among a variety of other editors who have chosen not to register any opposition. Despite a low number of !votes, the participation of a large number of editors without registered objection seems to indicate no objection to adoption of the amendment. Could it please be evaluated for closure? LavaBaron (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've updated the link to point to Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion instead of Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I see this as a very significant change to the revision deletion policy (since it would change longstanding practice regarding block logs), requiring a much broader consensus than the support of the proposer. It's better to assume that people haven't yet seen the proposal, rather than assuming that nobody will object to it. I recommend making neutral notes to the proposal on central community noticeboards like T:CENT, WP:VPP, and perhaps WP:AN to gather more input (within the bounds of WP:CANVASS, of course). As an uninvolved editor, if I were to close the discussion right now, it would regrettably have to be "no consensus". Mz7 (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done Mz7 (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gustav Holst
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gustav Holst ? Please consider Talk:Gustav Holst in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done SST  flyer  03:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done Rhoark (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ajax (play)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ajax (play) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done Mz7 (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Republic of China general election, 2016
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republic of China general election, 2016 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 133
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 133 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Give it some more time. It seems that technical improvements are in the pipeline, which may affect the options available. Deryck C. 14:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I've fixed the initiated date from 19 July 2016 to 24 June 2016. I listed it here because it had been archived. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies. It got archived already... I'm not sure that discussion has a closure action as it is. You can slap an archive top and archive bottom onto it if you feel necessary? Deryck C. 09:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Marking as not done for the bot for now, because I'm not sure what there is to do. Deryck C. 23:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , why is there nothing to do? The proposal was to move galleries from  by default to   by default. The proposal received much discussion from the community. An RfC close would determine whether the proposal was successful. If it is successful, then the technical change could be implemented, If it not successful, then a close would note that and possibly summarize points of agreement that could help frame future discussions. I've removed the not done tag. I have not closed the discussion myself because I would not be an objective closer for this subject. Cunard (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case would it make more sense to re-open the discussion (by moving it back to the main noticeboard) first, then close again after another few days? Deryck C. 17:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've unarchived the discussion and added my opinion. I agree with closing this after a few days. Cunard (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * done --Deryck C. 12:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Arrow (season 1)
The 30 day period has ended. Will an uninvolved editor please close the RfC and state their decision? --HamedH94 (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reminder, it's been 47 days. --HamedH94 (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 12:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive933
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive933? 96.230.117.77 (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done. --Deryck C. 12:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive933
Would an uninvolved admin close this before it is archived? Bottom section needs decision on passage of a topic ban.LM2000 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Airplaneman. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of male singles tennis players
Could we please get a routine closure at Talk:List of male singles tennis players? It's been open for 5 months with the only person wanting it being the person who opened the request. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Eric Frein
Could someone please take a look at this discussion? It was started after a contentious AFD, and has been open for three weeks. I approached the nominator, who was still angry at me after the AFD, and said to take here because he didn't want to engage with me. Posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography a week ago to try to get more comment but no one else has commented. If someone could take a look at it to close, that would be appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Help talk:Hidden text
This is a proposal to designate that help page as a guideline. As it has broad implications, I would like a formal closure by an uninvolved editor, please. Discussion petered out a week ago. It has been open less than the default of 30 days, but more than the 7 day minimum per Policies and guidelines. Thanks, --RexxS (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mz7 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Mz7 (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Vanessa Veracruz
Has been open for over seven days without a relist; needs assessment from an uninvolved admin. <span style="color:;">  <span style="color:;"> 22:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#28c">fish &amp;<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#D33">karate 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Protection policy
Would an uninvolved admin or experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy to adjust this policy; additionally any comments are welcome prior to sending the mass-message to all sysops. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 23:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Dersim massacre
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Dersim massacre ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Drmies. Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 55
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 55 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done  Sandstein   20:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ride the Lightning
Presence or absence of consensus in >30-day-old discussion needs assessment.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: A participant in the above discussion has now requested another user to close it, which they did in favour of the requester. Can I insist that an admin close it instead?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The close was fine.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The person who closed the discussion is an admin.--Retrohead (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done by Ritchie333. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Diesel_engine
The RfC at this article was delisted today. The last comment in the RfC proper was listed 20 August. I proposed a possible closure (Talk:Diesel engine,) however at least one party disagrees and I am an involved party, so I'm bringing the somewhat convoluted RfC here for a closure request. Thanks for your consideration. Laughing Vulcan Grok Page! 05:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (urgh - that was an ugly one, but not a complex one). (non-admin closure) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 07:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Frank Gaffney/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frank Gaffney/Archive 1 ? Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Frank Gaffney/Archive 1 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Alsee (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 50
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 50 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Alsee (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Noël Coward
An uninvolved admin will be needed to close this RfC on 14 September (or sooner if discussion ends, but that's unlikely). I'm requesting admin closure because it has been a contentious debate. It would be ideal if someone could volunteer soon, so that there's lots of time to become familiar with the comments and background. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * RfC Period Expired: The RfC is ready for closure now at Talk:Noël Coward -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk 19:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I second that notion.--&#42;thing goes (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Closed as no consensus. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Done agt x  23:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment from an involved editor: I think there are several things needing assessment: whether there is consensus for the move, and if so, the range of years/numbers to be moved, and the "targets", i.e. AD vs CE, and AD 1 vs 1 AD vs 1 (year) etc. If they're to be moved, I also suggest to the closer to prescribe a timeframe in which technical changes (to existing dab/nav templates in particular) can be changed in preparation for the move. If there's consensus for the move, but the closer deems no consensus yet for range/target, a second RfC would be a good time for the technical changes to be made and tested. Thanks — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 14:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Protect user pages by default
As proposer of Requests for comment/Protect user pages by default, I request that an experienced, uninvolved editor evaluate the (numerous) comments and close. Thank you - Funcrunch (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Done - jc37 00:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mike Pence
I request that an experienced and uninvolved editor assess this discussion and close. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Done agt x  02:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Into You (Ariana Grande song)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Into You (Ariana Grande song) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Not done - This is a discussion between 3 editors (a 4th added a "support" comment) about whether WP:SYNTH applies to summarizing references in the lede of an article. I don't know that there is anything to "close" here. I'm going to drop a note pointing them to the WP:VP. - jc37 09:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 11
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 11 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Philippines v. China
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Philippines v. China ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:New York
Given the recent and ongoing sensitive discussions about this issue, I request a formal close by a totally uninvolved administrator who has not participated as discussant or as closer in any of the 2016 debates regarding the titling structure of New York-related articles (debates which started with Talk:New York). — JFG talk 11:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I might take this one~, if folks don't mind and I have time - seems like a somewhat complex discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right
Would an experienced, uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right? Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done by and . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Nice idea. Deryck C. 11:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of senior officers of the Argentine Navy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of senior officers of the Argentine Navy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Monofloral_honey
Discussion has been open for over a month now with next to no discussion since then. The number of votes themselves are split, but since we don't just count votes, it looks like we need someone uninvolved to weigh the arguments. Someone familiar with WP:GNG with respect to weighing a term showing up in Google versus actually having enough reliably sourced content for a standalone article would probably get to the heart of the matter pretty well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done MartinZ02 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 54
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 54 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done  Sandstein   08:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfCs at Wikipedia talk:Notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * . I handled the first one, but won't take the second one to avoid monopolizing. Rhoark (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. I've closed the second one. agt x  18:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you and  for closing the RfCs! Cunard (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 10
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done  Sandstein   19:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016
I request that an experienced and uninvolved editor assess this discussion and close. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done  Sandstein   19:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2016 August
Would an admin assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2016 August Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ping. Participants are looking for a close see end of the discussion. PaleAqua (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems really like a "colour of the bikeshed" thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, it's been open for 44 days and needs to be closed.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ping per above. Charles Essie (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done by — Andy W. ( talk ) 02:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Archive 13
Hello. There has been a dispute for several weeks about whether or not presidential candidates Castle and Mcmullin should be included in the infobox and what the pre-election inclusion criteria should be. An RfC has been going on for more than 2 weeks now. Many users have expressed concern that if the RfC is not closed before election day the RfC would be rendered moot, especially since there is already an undisputed post-election inclusion criteria that these candidates may or may not meet. Since the discussion has pretty much come to a stand still anyways, we are asking for the RfC to be closed ASAP in order to bring clarity to what the consensus is as well as prevent future edit wars which have been occurring on and off for more than a month. Thanks! Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done —MartinZ02 (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 28
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 28 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done. My talk page is going to light up in 3... 2... 1... — S Marshall  T/C 23:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The 100 (TV series)
This recently closed. Needs a closer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Prcc27🌍 (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am currently trying to talk this close out with Prcc27. If he doesn't justify the close, this will be going to review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Files for discussion/2016 September 22

 * Please disposition Files for discussion/2016 September 22. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Deryck C. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Eritrea
Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Talk:Eritrea ? Thanks, Soupforone (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The dispute as a whole should be reviewed. It does also exist a case in the admin incident board . The admin should not be involved user as mentioned and not a admin involved in similar disputes (between the same partiets) such as admin CambridgeBayWeather. Richard0048 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * done— S Marshall T/C 11:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants ? There is a request for closure at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done— S Marshall T/C 12:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Frankfurt School
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frankfurt School ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 14:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Pavel Florensky
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pavel Florensky ? Please consider Talk:Pavel Florensky in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done— S Marshall T/C 15:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants ? There is a request for closure at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done— S Marshall T/C 12:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Slut-shaming
The RfC for this discussion expired on the 18th. Would an uninvolved administrator assess the arguments and whether or not a consensus was reached on the matter or on part of the matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Merger of Demolition
Would an experienced user assess the consensus formed here and close the discussion? Thanks. -- M h hossein   talk 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Fused deposition modeling
Discussion open for a year with 1 opposition and 8 support votes. Not quite willing to go boldly as there is one initial opposition. There are also a few other similar previous discussions on that page. --Artoria2e5 <small style="font-weight:lighter">emits crap 21:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cedar Fire (2003) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of awareness ribbons
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of awareness ribbons ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of bus routes in London
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of bus routes in London ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Prcc27🌍 (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Elvis Presley
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elvis Presley ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Han Chinese
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Han Chinese ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Kaine
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kaine ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done although so far one user thinks that my assessment will complicate things. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * At least two editors consider that the close was not reflective of the consensus contained within the RfC. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:European Open (snooker)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:European Open (snooker) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive284
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive284 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done. I closed it myself as initiator without a side. Deryck C. 12:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jules Feiffer
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jules Feiffer ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Category talk:Violence against men
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Violence against men ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Neither version was up to much, really.— S Marshall  T/C 20:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Gamergate draft
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Requests for comment/Gamergate draft ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Whew.— S Marshall  T/C 22:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A very difficult close and an excellent, detailed closing rationale. Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander the Great
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alexander the Great ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * done.— S Marshall T/C 18:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott
Requesting close because of this diff. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * . Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
I'm not sure how expired requests are handled here -- archived, auto-archived, or just deleted -- but anyway, this RfC 1) does not necessarily require a close, and 2) has been auto-archived due to inactivitiy. So I hatted it and, and it can be deleted or archived I guess. Herostratus (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

. Note that the later thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is an extended part of the RfC discussion as well, as is the subthread mentioned in the request immediately below this one. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC) updated 04:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I opened this RfC, so let me talk about this a little bit. I originally opened the RfC as a "let's talk about this" thread with no "action items" expected to come out it (rather, perhaps some suggestions for future RfC that would have action items). It turned into rather quite a sprawling discussion, which is exactly what we want. But not one that would normally need to be "closed".


 * However, in the organic process, an editor opened an "action item" RfC within the large RfC. This is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. This is unusual and some editors objected that 1) this was improper, and/or 2) anyway it was not properly and neutrally written, and/or 3) there was canvassing.


 * Anyway, this sub-RfC did have a survey section, and so it does need to be closed. One valid close would be "Well the objections are cogent, this is not a valid RfC from which any action item can ensue". Another valid close could be would be to close it as a normal action-item RfC, e.g. as "the proposition is accepted" or "the proposition is rejected" or "no consensus so no change". FWIW and it may not be worth much, my counting noses and summarization of the matter as it currently stands is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style #3. Herostratus (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
See the above thread, of which this describes a sub-thread. Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

An uninvolved editor will be needed to close this RfC on 30 September. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This request is redundant with the one above it, and is just a request to close one subthread of the actual RfC. The RfC en toto should be closed (on 21 September), not just one part of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles
Would an editor please assess and close this discussion. Springee (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 02:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
Resolved Would an esteemed admin kindly volunteer to assess consensus in this long and relevant discussion about WP:TWODABS guidance? — JFG talk 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * RfC relisted P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 21:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion
Here are a few RfDs which have already been relisted twice: Any help is, of course, appreciated. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 1 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 1 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 2 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 14 –
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 14 –
 * done. P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 22:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Candyland (musician)
Please disposition Articles for deletion/Candyland (musician). --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Randykitty. Cunard (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Charming Liars
Please disposition Articles for deletion/Charming Liars. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Han Chinese
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Han Chinese ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)<BR> Done LavaBaron (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Daniel (biblical figure)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Daniel (biblical figure) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)<BR> Done LavaBaron (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
This discussion was marked as complete on 3 October, and, given the strong opinions expressed on both sides, needs a formal closure. It was suggested during the discussion that it might be best for a panel of three admins to decide this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)<BR> Done LavaBaron (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jane Austen
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jane Austen ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)<BR> Done LavaBaron (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

====Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 53==== Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 53 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)<BR> Done LavaBaron (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Sarah
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert Sarah ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)<BR> Done

Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald
A single purpose account has a serious problem with WP:IDHT. This lone editor has argued for over a month that trivial information about Oswald's job as a radar operator on a military base that coincidentally involved U-2 planes should be included in the article. Editor makes no sourced connection between Oswald and U-2, and clearly is trying to insert an unfounded implication into the article that Oswald was involved in a bigger conspiracy. Editor repeats the same argument again and again and can't take no for an answer. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC) <BR> Done LavaBaron (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)<BR> Done LavaBaron (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox video game
Requesting formal close on Template talk:Infobox video game czar  01:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done— S Marshall T/C 18:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Sarah
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert Sarah ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - restored by me after I reverted a poor close which didn't address the issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For total transparency, following was my closing rationale after the above editor expressed umbrage with my first closure. The closure has since been reverted a second time.
 * The RfC has been open for one month with the last substantive comment made more than two weeks ago. At this point two editors support the heading Opposition to LGBT Rights, one editor supports the heading Views, one editor supports the heading Views based on the reconstruction of the article since the RfC's opening, one editor opposesOpposition to LGBT Rights but has not clearly stated support for an alternate heading, and another editor has expressed a general opinion on the existential nature of the discussion. Interspersed with this is a high amount of back-and-forth and tête-à-tête that is largely incoherent to a person not heavily entrenched in, what seems to be, a long backstory of WP:DRAMA on this article (including the use of "LOL", vague allusions to some participants block logs, angry declarations by one editor that he's "done helping here" due to some pattern of offenses allegedly suffered, allegations of persecution, etc.). A comment-by-comment analysis of the arguments presented finds, in the opinion of the closing editor, a general (but not total) void of substantive policy-based arguments that would trump the quantitative analysis just iterated. At this time there is no consensus and the RfC is closed as no consensus without prejudice for its subsequent reopening to achieve consensus. This decision can be appealed at deletion closure review as provided for in our policies.
 * I participate in closure review to help out, not to get grief from the parties to the RfC. I happily leave this one, and closure review generally, to someone else. Hasta la vista - LavaBaron (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * done Reclosed by yours truly. I took a slightly different view.— S Marshall  T/C 18:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Surrender (military)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Surrender (military) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * done— S Marshall T/C 13:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive284 and Administrators' noticeboard/Archive284
These two proposals for editing restrictions are part of this larger discussion Administrators' noticeboard. Thank you. - MrX 21:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Not done - No need to close, as there was a followup further down the page. And it's been a month and a half now, if someone sees further issues, they're of course welcome to start a new AN/I, and point to those discussions' information. - jc37 21:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Already done by User:Kudpung - jc37 21:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Eidetic memory
Things look okay at the article these days, but this discussion should have a close to help put the previous dispute to bed. Keep in mind that the question is not simply about distinguishing the terms (which is something the article already does); it's about whether we should strictly distinguish them (as in say they are not the same thing and leave it at that). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding this, I have objected to Rhoark closing this RfC. Due to our disputes in the past, I do not consider him a neutral party. And I would rather not rehash here what those disputes were. Will a neutral editor close this RfC? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: I also commented on Rhoark's talk page about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My closure was not contingent on the identities of any people participating. It was part of a slate of backlogged closures, so the fact you posed it did not influence my decision to close it. The topic is not related to any disagreement we've had in the past. The RfC was posed reasonably neutrally, and you expressed no definite preferences apart from that the article should not be forked. You've said the closure itself is not bad, and if it differs in any way from your preferred outcome, I don't know what that difference is. It does not seem possible that I could have acted even with a subconscious desire to thwart you. In consideration of all this, I don't think it's necessary to withdraw the closure, but I'm open to more community input. Rhoark (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Rhoark (last time pinging you in this section because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies), I appreciate you taking the time to explain and being open to community input. It is difficult for me to trust people acting in a neutral manner toward me if I've had a tempestuous or semi-tempestuous Wikipedia relationship with those people. Editing here for years, in the various contentious topics I edit in, has proven my distrust to be valid. It usually takes a significant time for me to even consider that an editor I've had a tempestuous or semi-tempestuous Wikipedia relationship with might become a good Wikipedia acquaintance of mine and/or might be willing to be neutral when it comes to me. There are a few such editors, but that took time. As for my preference for the RfC outcome, I didn't object because your close went against any preference I might have. My preferences were: That the article not be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing, and that we don't unnecessarily content fork. But I am curious about something. The RfC, as previously noted, is about whether we should strictly distinguish the terms/concepts (as in say they are not the same thing and leave it at that). I don't see any consensus that we should be strict in stating that they are not the same thing. And your close begins by noting that definitions for the topic are not consistent. But then you stated, "There seems to be agreement that the article should more clearly partition its material to being about one concept or the other, but should not over-emphasize terminology as a way to distinguish the two." Why did you state that? How can the article more clearly be about one subject or the other, given the interchangeability of the terms? See the "Eidetic memory or photographic memory" section of the Eidetic memory article. That is a needed section. Do you mean that the article should pretty much stay as it is, with the lead noting the interchangeability and distinguishing aspects, and that one section going into further detail, but the rest of the article focusing specifically on eidetic memory (as in the one with more scientific backing)? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus that I read is that there are two concepts sharing a term. Normally they would be disambiguated with separate pages, but in this case there is sufficient reason not to do so, considering how often the two are conflated. Imagine there were a consensus to cover Bill (law) and beak in the same Wikipedia article for some reason. You would have to pay attention to what each source means by "bill". If you juxtapose claims about both of them you might have readers thinking waterfowl are part of the legislative process. That's what I refer to by "partitioning". On the other hand, you wouldn't say "A bill is always proposed legislation and never part of a bird," since you know there are sources that mean different things by "bill". There wasn't enough discussion about things like which section should be first or longest to call a consensus on anything like that. I notice you've unilaterally reverted the close. That's not the recommended process and I don't agree with the action or reasons. I'm not disposed to argue about it though. Anyone else reviewing this noticeboard will know what they'll be getting into. Rhoark (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing discussions (which is an information page, not a policy or a guideline) indicates that it is about disagreeing with a closer's rationale. I, on the other hand, disagree with you closing the RfC regardless of your rationale, and I've been clear about why. If you were an administrator, I could cite WP:INVOLVED. But since you are not, I can only state that a closer should be a neutral party. This is clear at Closing discussions. Given our history, I would have never attempted to close a discussion you were involved in. And you stating "Anyone else reviewing this noticeboard will know what they'll be getting into." is the type of thing I mean when it comes to your opinion of me being able to factor into matters. You make it seem like I am being difficult. Politely asking that another editor close the RfC because the previous editor who closed it is not exactly a neutral party when it comes to me is not being difficult. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Done by User:Rhoark. Previous interaction with an editor does not necessarily mean they are WP:INVOLVED with some arbitrary discussion that that editor may be in. I've undone the reversion of the closure without reading the closure (therefore don't read this as an admin endorsement of the close, merely that the undoing of the closure appeared inappropriate based upon the comments above). If anyone has concerns about this, please feel free to start an WP:AN discussion about the close as appropriate. Any uninvolved admin is welcome to undo/revert this action without needing to notify me. - jc37 22:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note after archive: See here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 20
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 20 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 22:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 215
Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard ? Thanks, Neutralitytalk 20:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 22:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 00:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Donald Trump email controversy
Would an uninvolved administrator kindly assess consensus on this stale political AfD? Thanks. — JFG talk 07:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done  Hut 8.5  19:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of best-selling albums in the United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of best-selling albums in the United States ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done (non-admin closure) - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:AlMaghrib Institute
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:AlMaghrib Institute ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done LavaBaron (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cold War II
Needs accurate evaluation for consensus. --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Lemongirl942. Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bitcoin
Would an experienced editor close the Talk:Bitcoin? Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's been minimal involvement in that RfC, and it hasn't run 30 days yet. Sam Walton (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * done. 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Cox (Catholic bishop)
This WP:RM discussion has somehow been open since March with no closure. --Cúchullain t/ c 20:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * done by  P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 23:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Pppery! With  back in April, the RM was reopened; however, it never seemed to bot back into the system until recently.  I noticed it today as the last and oldest item in the RM backlog, and then closed it.   Paine   u/ c  23:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 3
Please relist Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 3, as the only two people other than myself that have commented are the same two individuals that commented on my talk page, whose discussion is now closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Plastikspork. Thank you for closing the TfD! Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Files for discussion/2016 October 21
Please disposition. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the FfD!. Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Neonicotinoid/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Neonicotinoid/Archive 2 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 18:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 19:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Menelik II
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Menelik II ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Not done - Doesn't look like a need to close. - jc37 19:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 05:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd ? There is a clear consensus for a merge. However, editors are split on merging Miniature Australian Shepherd to Miniature American Shepherd or merging Miniature American Shepherd to Miniature Australian Shepherd. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 02:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Request speedy close on Talk:Lane splitting
Requesting speedy close of this RfC. The initiator has not made a reasonable effort to resolve this very petty dispute over wording. One of the three editors in the discussion has not yet replied. The actual reasons for the disagreement were only just outlined fully in just over 24 hours ago. I have not yet had time to post the full list of citations that I alluded to mere hours ago. Neither side has had time to suggest any compromise wording. All of this violates the instructions at WP:RfC to make an effort before starting an RfC. Any outside editor who is drawn into this petty dispute is going to find it annoying that such drama has been created over this obscure issue.<P>Please close for now and at least give it a week to see if we can work it out before pestering the wider community with this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * protected the talk page. Floquenbeam, would you review this closure request and determine whether the RfC should be speedy closed or kept open? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's almost been a month even since that request, so I don't think it's a question of "speedy" anything at this point : ) - jc37 23:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not done - I dropped a note there about the word row in the hopes of helping them towards consensus, only to hear from one of the participants that this has been resolved already. - jc37 02:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template, including the tangential discussion of RDTr at the bottom ? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left">Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 12:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 01:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC Closure
Please go here to address my concerns on a user that keeps undoing an RfC closure. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Could an admin please re-close this RfC while also assessing consensus in related sections throughout the talk page? It would be great to get resolution before election day. Thanks! Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a simple closure of an RfC. There are multiple RfC's going on about the same topic, along with up to a dozen other discussions, the topic of which has been under discussion since ~ Aug 23, 2016. The discussion involves revisiting a specific editing criterion established in 2012 that applies to the U.S. presidential general elections generally (not just this article). This needs to be handled by (at least) a couple of uninvolved admins and if there is a closing, I recommend closing all RfCs/discussions and starting over again after the election (after the editors who are supporting particular candidates are gone). Here's a brief history of the discussions I wrote up as an involved editor, but as unbiasedly as I could write it.  Sparkie82  ( t • c )  21:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The issue under discussion is about the criterion used to include candidates in the infobox prior to the election -- after the election, there is a different set of criteria because vote totals are available then -- so although the discussion would be mute [moot] for this particular article after the electiion, the issue of whether of not to change the pre-election criterion would still be used for future articles. (Plus the discussion would be easier after the election without all of the candidate hacks involved.)  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  21:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * has just revealed a number of discussions on my talk page from 2012 which were not previously mentioned on the 2016 talk page (where this subject RfC is) and which appear to be dispositive as to the much of the issue being discussed in all those RfC's/discussions. I've posted a recommendation at the subject RfC to close all the RfC's/discussions related to the issue in light of this "new" information.  Sparkie82  ( t • c )  09:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Archive 13 ? See also Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive937. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not done - Ok, so I spent quite a bit of time sifting through all of this. This had additional complications due to editors talking about how the page looked "now" (which meant viewing the article from it's history), edit warring, as well as a reverted closure by an involved editor which others subsequent to that treated as consensus when commenting in follow-up discussions. All that said, while at this point I can close all of this if truly needed, as the election is over, and the next is 4 years away, and as potentially, consensus can change in the meantime, I don't see much of a purpose in closing this now, even with all the work I put into this this far. - jc37 02:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Oso mudslide
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Oso mudslide ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 03:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Twin paradox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Twin paradox ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 04:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox observatory
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox observatory ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not done - Already resolved - jc37 05:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not done - apparently already implemented - jc37 02:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Samantha Bee
The discussion on whether to list as Samantha Bee as Canadian or Canadian-American is now just a back and forth argument between Sport and politics and myself. Since it's clear we won't agree and no other editor as commented in over a week, we need an outside editor to end the discussion. JDDJS (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Done Neutralitytalk 23:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Blockchain_(database)
Would an uninvolved editor please close the discussion on Talk:Blockchain_(database). Discussion has been open a long time, and has had no new input in some time. Needs a formal close as it has been contentious in multiple other/previous discussions on that article Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Esquivalience (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 02:46, 23 November 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) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Done - jc37 02:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Category talk:Films about hebephilia
The RfC template recently expired. The discussion could use a close. It's pretty much a WP:SNOW case, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2016 November 22
Please disposition Deletion review/Log/2016 November 22, as this is holding up a history merge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * close – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Dinesh D'Souza
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done LavaBaron (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Breitbart News
This discussion is starting to dwindle. There seems to be enough participation to gauge consensus at this point.- MrX 15:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done LavaBaron (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done by Black Kite. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ruger Mini-14
Could an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus and please close this RFC? Thank you Talk:Ruger Mini-14 CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * close as "consensus to include the material".- MrX 15:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Axis: Bold as Love
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Axis: Bold as Love ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * close as no consensus.- MrX 16:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Motion picture rating system
There is a fairly even split in the discussion and some complicated WP:ACCESSIBILITY arguments, so it would probably be best if an admin were to close it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * close by as consensus for Option B.- MrX 16:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Wurdi Youang
Could an uninvolved editor take a look at this, please. It is just over 30 days, and has no input since (mine from) a week ago. - Nabla (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * close as no consensus to include coordinates.- MrX 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * close as consensus is that the proposed text should not be restored.- MrX 19:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Al Jaffee
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Al Jaffee ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * close as consensus for the current infobox image.- MrX 01:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Diego Maradona
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Diego Maradona ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * close as consensus to omit ancestry. - MrX 01:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 60
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 60 ? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * close as no consensus for the proposed speedy deletion criteria.- MrX 03:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Portillo
Would an experienced editor please assess this? On votes there appears, to this editor, to be a clear consensus, and the thread is degenerating into cat-calling. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * close by as there is a clear consensus in favour of one option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Frank Gaffney RfC - Reword of Lede
This request has only been open 21 days, however, there has been no new opinion registered in a week and there seems to be a WP:SNOWBALL consensus. LavaBaron (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * close by as there is a clear consensus in favour of one option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Clark
Needs closure from an uninvolved editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * close as no change to infobox alma mater parameter. DrKay (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Harassment/Archive 12
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment/Archive 12 ? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking a three-person closure (Including at least one user who handles non-public information on a regular basis) would be advisable for this discussion. I'll volunteer with the admission that I am probably one of the worst people to close this, so I'll defer to basically any other team of three. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Am up for it. Deryck C. 13:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we need at least one more, and someone who has handled private info on a regular basis. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The WP:Signpost has just run two issues that discuss the issue at hand extensively. This is likely to generate a lot extra participation in the debate in the coming week or so, which will hopefully generate new arguments and possibly affect the outcome. I think we should hold on for at least two more weeks before closure. Deryck C. 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Two weeks might be excessive, but a week is certainly a good idea. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, probably time to get people to close this. Any nominations on "someone who has handled private info on a regular basis"? I have handled personal information for Wikimedia before, but that's in the context of organising meatspace Wikimedia events. Deryck C. 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging and, oversighters who have posted in WP:ANRFC recently. Would one of you be able to join Tazerdadog and Deryck Chan in closing the discussion? Or do you know how to reach out to others who have "handled private info on a regular basis"? Cunard (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, but I should decline the offer given I've directly contributed to the debate on a couple of occasions, as well as the Signpost editorial comment section. The best ways to reach others who handled routinely handled private information. would be a neutrally-worded email to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, which will reach current CU's and Oversighters plus a small collection of former arbs. Someone who hasn't taken part in the debate would hopefully then step forward to help with the close. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There appears to still be an open request for closure of this here. - jc37 22:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Tazerdadog and User:Deryck Chan, are you both still willing to close this? I'll give it a week for you to respond, else I'll see about closing it. - jc37 18:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to close it, but I'm worried that the debate will be stale at this point. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

close I've never done anything like this before, but on the basis of post one, close one, I'm going to close this one as stale. The thread was archived on October 20, so there's nothing to be gained by leaving it on here. Scolaire (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive285
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive285 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * N. B. the permalink is here (the do-not-archive tag expired; but so has discussion, so the permalink should suffice.) Herostratus (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:MPay
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MPay after 30 days have passed? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 46
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 46 ? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * done -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to a different discussion in your edit summary here? Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 46 is not closed yet, so I removed the close template so this will not be archived by the bot. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been archived, the discussion is stale. Pardon me for using the wrong word. -- Tavix ( talk ) 04:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I think it would be useful to have an experienced editor determine whether there is consensus for the proposal to keep two-item disambiguation pages. requested closure at WP:ANRFC at  and  marked it as relisted here. Pinging them and RfC initiator  and RfC relister  to see if they would like a closure or if they agree this is better left unclosed as stale. Cunard (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cunard, pardon, I'm very confused by this venue, but you have us reversed. Doncram was the RfC initiator and I relisted it, because it seemed we weren't done with the discussion. Tavix, you marked "done" just above; what is it that's done? — Gorthian (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion is done since it's been stale for weeks now and it's been archived. RfC's don't need formal closures when the result is obvious--in this case it's an obvious "no consensus" so I figured it best to just let it die. -- Tavix ( talk ) 05:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

====Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald==== This section and others, for example the already closed Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald, are protracted WP:FORUM debates and seem to be going nowhere. —DIY Editor (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Britney Amber
Has been open for nearly a month; needs closure from an uninvolved admin (I personally have no opinion on the subject).  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 04:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the AfD! Cunard (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/London Buses route 109
The discussion has been left open for a month, I cannot close it as I am involved. Thanks Nordic   Nightfury  11:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the AfD! Cunard (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/November 2016
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/November 2016 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Nothing Was the Same
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nothing Was the Same ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 South Korean protests
There may be a consensus, but I need someone to do the closure. George Ho (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:James Watson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James Watson ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 17:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016
This AfD should be closed per WP:SNOW – there are currently 33 !votes for keep and only four in favour of deletion (including the nom). The article is high-profile and high-traffic, and the AfD tag is basically only serving as a "badge of shame" at this point. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  07:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done by Anachronist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the AfD, ! Cunard (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, but given the first paragraph of the close, I suggest to keep it listed until a week has gone by without any challenge. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 18:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Charlotte (wrestler)
Needs closure from uninvolved editor.LM2000 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Requesting again as this discussion has gone stale and it's heading into its second month. An attempt by one user to close was met with controversy.LM2000 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Closed as move. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the requested move, ! Cunard (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 8
RfC will be 30 days old on 21 November (ignore signatures near the top as they are re-signs or material added significantly after RfC start). FWIW, there is a consensus to close now, due to no activity, at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Thanks in advance! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 06:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:National Hockey League
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:National Hockey League ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * done Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 05:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Center for Security Policy/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Center for Security Policy/Archive 2 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Password strength requirements
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Password strength requirements ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Judith Barsi
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Judith Barsi ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Amortias (T)(C) 21:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286

 * Could an experienced editor please close the discussion on this page?Hobit (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cold war (general term)
While the discussion might need more time, requesting it earlier is best due to the backlog of requests above. George Ho (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 136
An uninvolved editor will be needed soon to close the above. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Alsee (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 188
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 188 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 38
Relatively simple question about an infobox image. RfC is 30 days old today and has been de-listed. Thanks in advance! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (2nd nomination)
This discussion has been going on for nine days, two longer than AFDs are supposed to go on for. It is very long (in terms of the amount of text that editors have written in it), very heated, and lots of long-term editors, myself included, have offered contradictory opinions in it. I would like to request that an uninvolved admin close it. Everymorning (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Coffee. Thank you for closing the AfD! Cunard (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus seems apparent enough, so I don't think a formal close is strictly necessary (all the more so because the discussion has now been automatically archived), but it would be be good to have someone uninvolved confirm that. – Uanfala (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that this should be formally closed, especially because, if there is consensus to do anything in that discussion, it hasn't been done. P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 23:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My reading of the consensus has been challenged, so a formal closure would be needed. – Uanfala (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:AD 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:AD 1 ? Please consider Talk:AD 1 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment by involved editor. The closing statement of the earlier RfC stated: the consensus is that the pages 1-100 will be moved only if a consensus can be reached as to the name of the articles. If there's assessed consensus for a title, please consider suggesting a period of time in which pre-move preparations can (need to) be made before the batch moves. This will involve new conditional logic such as year nav/dab templates. If it's assessed there's no consensus, these template updates will not be necessary. Take this with a grain of salt; I'm an involved editor, thanks — Andy W. ( talk ) 05:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment by involved editor. Concur with Andy.  There would be a lot of work required in the year-related templates, although some needs to be done anyway, and the first RfC was contingent on a WP:CONSENSUS as to the move targets, which is not related to a majority.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment by OP – Work on the templates has started and is not very difficult if we stick to changing the targets of years 1–100. There was a rather strong consensus in the original RfC for limiting the move to this range. Titles of year articles should be consistent but several name variants are already handled by redirects, so there is no harm in whichever solution is adopted. — JFG talk 09:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Update – By collective effort of some editors, pages 1…9 have been moved to AD 1…AD 9 as a testbed to validate all necessary technical changes, including numerous templates dealing with years. Titles 1…9 are now assigned to the disambiguation pages. There were no objections from readers and other discussion participants so far. We are waiting for a formal closure of the second RfC in order to proceed with the migration work for 10…100 if a naming convention can be decided. — JFG talk 16:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Eckhart Tolle
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eckhart Tolle ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Amortias (T)(C) 12:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Miscellany for discussion
This discussion forum currently has an average backlog, 17 items going back to November 7, 2016. (15:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC))
 * Seems to be done, only two items left. P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 14:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Johannes Brahms
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johannes Brahms ? Please consider Talk:Johannes Brahms/Archive 2 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * done Hobit (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Pizzagate
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pizzagate ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done Hobit (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Talk:Mia Khalifa
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Mia Khalifa ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Resolved Closed with consensus to Oppose inclusion (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Templating, so that the archive bot does its deed. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 19:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Talk:Lars von Trier
Though the subject is important, the RfC probably isn't necessary. AndrewOne (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 17:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 8
This discussion has stayed open for nearly six months! P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 03:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Being closed by  P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 15:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done {finally} P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 17:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right
Unanimously opposed; it's snowing, someone please close this. Sam Walton (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (involved comment) - I think it is reasonable to snow-close or procedural-close the original proposition, but to keep the "alternative proposal" by Jbh open. Maybe refactor the whole page or something. I made a comment to that effect here. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 14:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The alternative proposal should certainly remain open, yes. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll close the first part. BethNaught (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * by BethNaught. The other part of the RfC (which should probably run at least a full month) was . Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 17:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * close by  P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 15:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Dental caries
resolved Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dental caries ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Closed. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Talk:Frank Gaffney/Archive 1
This article has been a recurrent hotbed of controversy, especially of claims of bias against the subject by WP regulars and for the subject by newcomers who appear to be fans of the subject. The RfC in question proposed two wording choices, and an alternative third one was later added. Supporters of the second of the original alternatives are declaring amongst themselves that they have a consensus for that version, despite multiple policy and guideline objections raised to it (thus the third option). I think it should be administratively assessed, because it's presently being treated as a head-counting vote instead of an analysis. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done by . P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 17:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)
Really need an administrator to close this one, as it's a contentious issue that has been discussed several times. Softlavender (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Closed. No admin required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Talk:Fidel Castro
I initiated this RfC yesterday to deal with a situation already extensively debated on the Talk Page and at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Over the past 30 hours the RfC has seen a great deal of attention, with twenty statements of opposition/support/neutrality with regard to the central question. It has reached the point where insults are being traded and the same of issues are being trotted out again and again. Perhaps it is too early to bring it to a close, but I feel that it has served its purpose. Would an experienced editor who is well versed in Wikipedia policy and determining consensus please take a look and, if they see fit, bring it to a close. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This RfC has been open for just short of thirty days now, and I think that there is a clear consensus that has emerged. The conversation appears to have been exhausted, with no new posts for many days. It would be great if an experienced editor could take a look at this one and wrap it up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Already done by User:Cenarium; that RfC was . Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 15:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Amortias (T)(C) 12:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bot policy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy ? Thanks, — xaosflux  Talk 14:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done by User:Jo-Jo_Eumerus. Thank you, —  xaosflux  Talk 14:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Files for discussion/2016 December 11
Please disposition, which has been open since early December 2016. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * already done by Czar. --George Ho (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the FfD, ! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Tazerdadog (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done by Beeblebrox. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, Beeblebrox! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Scarlett Johansson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Scarlett Johansson ? See the subsection Talk:Scarlett Johansson. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * done Tazerdadog (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:North Korea
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:North Korea ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done by sport and politics. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * done Tazerdadog (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archives/2017/January
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archives/2017/January ? I am specifically requesting an Administrator's attention as the issue appears to be very contentious. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done by Sandstein. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Popular election
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Popular election ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * A formal close is not necessary for this RFC in my judgement. done <-- So the bot archives it Tazerdadog (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Periodic table
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Periodic table ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done Tazerdadog (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done by  P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 14:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 42
Would an uninvolved administrator kindly assess the consensus there? — JFG talk 18:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 30 days old and de-listed. Thanks in advance! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done  Sandstein   15:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Royal free city
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Royal free city ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Formal closure unnecessary. done <-- So the bot will archive Tazerdadog (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Afro engineering
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:Afro engineering ? Thank you, — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 23:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done by Wugapodes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection
Could an admin summarise this discussion and those referenced within it, and give it a nice hat? Full disclosure: I'm guilty of suggesting an outcome at the end of the discussion, as I only now thought it might be nice to have something a bit more official. Thanks. Samsara 02:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done by  P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 20:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Greger
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Greger ? I recommend a formal close per this comment about how this dispute has been ongoing for years: "Note past discussions Turns out this dispute goes back a few years :Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1, and most of the talk page discussion this year is about it, starting at Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1. It's been brought up at BLPN twice: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238 and just today at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238. Given what I've found, there may be more as editors haven't been clearly acknowledging past discussions, as with this RfC." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * RFC has been archived from the article talkpage - at the point it was archived consensus was roughly twice in favour of the source *not* being a violation. Formal closure is not necessary at this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've unarchived the discussion. I think a formal close would be helpful because as an RfC participant noted "Turns out this dispute goes back a few years". Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have proposed an approach to closure of this RFC, and will close after a break of 36+ hours, unless there is significant disagreement with the approach proposed, or if someone else indicates an intention to close. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done I did it because no one else seemed willing to.— CYBERPOWER  (<span style="color:\#FF8C00">Around ) 02:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump
Could an uninvolved, experienced editor close the discussion? -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Closed — JFG talk 13:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016
Someone uninvolved should review the page for accurate consensus. George Ho (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Just for an update, I relisted the discussion because waiting time for a volunteer would be longer than I thought. I can still welcome the closure. George Ho (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * done by and . Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of GoldSrc engine mods
Formal close, please. czar 17:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 22
. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done by BU Rob13. Thank you for closing the TfD! Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Files for discussion
There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! - F ASTILY   08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it's more than an hour, that's for sure czar  18:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to be done (down to two months). P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 18:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sciences Po
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sciences Po ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC) done Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  15:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks straightforward enough, but the closer should be aware that this has been the subject of this and that ANI threads already. I would have closed it, but that's pretty much a surefire way to be dragged in another ANI round. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 16:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome/Archive 19
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Already done. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 23:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion-rights movements
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abortion-rights movements ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 23:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of Rozen Maiden characters
After discussing with the closing admin for the AFD and DRV, could an editor close the straw vote and redirect the page? DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 09:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: . I think an admin ought to close this one, after one AfD and a DRV recently. The topic is (suprisingly) very contentious. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 14:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  10:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Volunteer (Ireland)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Volunteer (Ireland) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * close as no consensus for a merge at this time. Scolaire (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 11
Probably not an easy close, but. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't see this was here, but I had relisted it for one more go I think after this note was posted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was relisted to Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 4. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done as this was relisted it is no longer a request for closure. — xaosflux  Talk 14:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A formal close seems unnecessary here. done  <--For the bot Tazerdadog (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Silicon Alley
Please formally close this RfC. The discussion is endless and needs to be settled. A neutral assessment of consensus would be appreciated.Polyamorph (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are seven days to go; there is WP:BLUDGEONing going on in the discussion section by one editor as is clear from the page stats but that can handled via SHUN. This list is way backed up so I reckon no will get to this before the natural period expires. When it does a formal close would be very useful, due to said bludgeoner. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The RfC has today formally ended so closure is now needed. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done. I expect the formal challenge to be posted any time now. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Formal challenge placed now. I request three senior closing editors to review the RfC closure specifically to look at the sources quoted toward the end of the discussion to adjudicate whether it is reasonable to include a small passage in the discussion (one or two properly sourced sentences) on biotech, specifically pointing out that several sources lump biotech into Silicon Alley albeit as a minority viewpoint. I believe that as many times as I quoted these sources in the discussion, they were not seen clearly until too late, after !votes had been cast, since I was specifically not allowed to post these refs in the text of the article pending the discussion, where in plain sight would have provided fair, reasonable, and proper adjudication by actual and potential !voters. Castncoot (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Link to closure review: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bernie or Bust
Can an uninvolved editor please close this request? --  Dane talk  06:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Tazerdadog (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 132
Appears that opposes would overcome support. Needs closure. George Ho (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * already done by proposer. --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 24
. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * already done ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive944
- Done Would an uninvolved user please close and archive it? The discussion is over and the conflict has been solved. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 1 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Closed as no consensus. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus and formally close this proposal? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done --Cerebellum (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Star Wars expanded universe
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Star Wars expanded universe ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done --Cerebellum (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:American Idol (season 11)
. Appears snow to me. Thanks, John from Idegon (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done --Cerebellum (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Vladimir Putin
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Vladimir Putin ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Already done by JFG. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 18:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Blonde (Frank Ocean album)
It began over a month ago, with the most recent vote on January 6th. May an experienced editor assess the consensus? AndrewOne (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Jane Brown
I'm requesting closure, though closure is a little too soon. Nevertheless, I'm doing this just in case. --George Ho (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably should wait a couple more weeks. Hobit (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hobit, shall I relist the discussion, or can you volunteer or wait for a closer instead? George Ho (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Re-pinging, just in case it doesn't work. George Ho (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Sorry for the delay after the first ping, I just didn't have time until this weekend. Hobit (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen
The discussion needs closure. I see established consensus, but I'd rather request the closure by someone else. George Ho (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * already done by IP. George Ho (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Portal talk:Latter Day Saints
Please close this discussion.--Broter (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Paul August &#9742; 22:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Real Irish Republican Army
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Real Irish Republican Army ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Generation Snowflake
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Generation Snowflake ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Stanley Kubrick
The RfC tag is removed by bot, and the discussion is long enough to justify closure. --George Ho (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Sidebar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 47
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 47 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That has been done 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The above has been reverted, would somebody else assess the situation again and write a more "proper" close? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, again.  Sandstein   21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 15
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Female genital mutilation ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Legobot removed the RFC tags as stale on 21 November and then lowercase sigmabot III archived the discussion on 4 December without formal closure. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm marking this as done. As  noted in the RfC, the point is moot as the issue was resolved with this edit on 25 October.  I don't see any point in going into the archives to mark the discussion as closed after all this time. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Cinchona
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cinchona ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done result was no consensus. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done by Tazerdadog. Sam Walton (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)