Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 27

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
discussion has long-since concluded and consensus is clear, but due to the nature of the discussion (a change to speedy deletion criteria) it needs formal closure and actioning by an uninvolved administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2018 October
Would an admin assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2018 October? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this MR is discussed-out and then some, turning in on itself in rehash of rehash about rehash. It's rather aberrant for an MR to remain open this long. MR's purpose is to determine whether someone made a bad close, not to determine a new community consensus about content matter. That is, the longer this goes on, the longer there's an open accusation against an editor and their judgement. The actual matter is quite simple (was there or was there not a clear consensus in the RM closed as no consensus) despite all the verbiage in this MR (including the inappropriate attempts to turn an RM in favor of name A then an RM that did not conclude to revert to name B into a request to go to name B anyway as if the second RM had overturned the first, the opposite of what actually happened – it's a total re-litigation farm).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done -- RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2018 November 20
Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2018 November 20? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since only administrators can undelete pages, I've moved this request to the "Administrative discussions" section. —  Newslinger  talk   04:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Alan Walker discography
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alan Walker discography? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   23:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Apsis
– Yeah, it really has been that long, but not because of any disagreement on consensus; the consensus being that Perihelion and aphelion covers the same exact ground as Apsis, as "perihelion" and "aphelion" are apsides of the Sun. Two are in opposition; one that clearly seems to not understand what redirects are, and another who is trying to argue that the Sun's apsides are more important that any other objects' apsides because "Its the sun"... Not exactly the best argument, is it? Would a kind editor please close this prolonged discussion with some hefty authority? It'd be much appreciated! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 23:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As this discussion was not a request for comment, I've moved this request to the "other" section. —  Newslinger  talk   06:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   06:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Skylab controversy
Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus in this discussion of a proposed merge? Thank you. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 5
Hello, folks! There's been a merge proposal open here since August. As I'm sure this is pretty unique, I'm not entirely sure where to post this, so I figured I might as well put this here. Thanks! &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * this is the correct section for non-RfC discussions needing closing, so I've moved it here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And another month goes by, can we close this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done -The Gnome (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators
has not received any new comments in about three weeks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done by Lourdes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2018 November 11
Has been open for 20 days. Was WP:NAC'd, then that close backed out when objected to. Needs reclosing. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done by Joe Roe. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity
I strongly feel that a formal closure is needed here by an uninvolved editor. Please help. I'm sorry, but I don't know how to put a nice link like other topics here are having. Can someone assist with the formatting as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilseric (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 00:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I must say that I have expected that you would at least read the discussion, and evaluate the arguments. RfC is not a vote count. I seriously doubt you could have done that in this amount of time. Bilseric (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I did. Literally no one other than you agreed with your proposal, and strong policy-based arguments were made. That's a consensus right there, no vote-counting necessary. The one objection that could be made is that the discussion was closed too early and that more editors should have been given the opportunity to weigh in. However, having read the conversation, I sincerely doubt that the consensus would have changed, and at any rate you were the person who requested the discussion be closed. signed,Rosguill talk 01:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)01:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to reopen this and have 3-4 previously uninvolved editors share their opinion before formally closing. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask considering the situation. I really see no reason to rush the closure, although I have requested the formal closure. I just didn't expect it will be done so fast. I'm not asking you to change your opinion, but to leave others share theirs, because I feel that the editors who were previously engaged have a predetermined opinion. I wanted to be objective so I asked them to come, but I unintentionally made a case of canvassing here. I'm sure that you would agree it would have been unfair if I had canvassed 3-4 editors to agree with me. This shouldn't be any different. Bilseric (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Bilseric, there is no way that your proposal will get consensus because it based on WP:SYNTHESIS - please read that policy I've linked - since the sources don't mention Tesla. Proposals that fundamentally violate policy simply cannot get consensus and so there is no point in reopening and getting more editors to discuss it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * But I indeed have posted a source that mentions Tesla and is not SYNTH. It's listed as the 3rd point of RfC, however the closing didn't address that point. Did you read my last post in the discussion? I have accepted the SYNTH objection, that's why I posted the source other editors have requested. I just feel that we should allow a little more time for other editors to join in. There is really no need to rush. If other, previously uninvolved editors join and agree, I will accept the consensus. I just feel uncomfortable that the consensus is done solely by canvassed editors. Bilseric (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You two can even share this opinions that you wrote here in the discussion. Then at least there will be 2 opinions from non involved editors. A few more and we will have the equal number of previously involved and new editors, then no one should feel that the consensus was rushed or pushed by canvassed editors. I feel that the closure done in this matter won't resolve anything and that the same discussion will be again opened in the future by someone else. Bilseric (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I just requested the closure because I felt that snow closure shouldn't be done solely by canvassed editors. I recognize my mistake when pinging other editors. I should have just opened the RfC without pinging, I will be more careful in the future.Rosguill said that the only objection that can be made is that it was closed to early, but I didn't expect it will be done so promptly. This is really my mistake since I'm not that experienced. If you read the discussion you will see that I was against rushing the closure, but I was afraid that they will snow close it, so I opened this request expecting ot will last for some time. I really have done everything to get more editors and correct this canvassing mistake that I did. I didn't want to ping more users because it would just worsen the situation. I don't see what more could I now possibly do to correct this canvassing. I apologize for making it happen. It was unintentionall. I feel the only to correct it is to plea you to leave the discussion opened for a little more time. Bilseric (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You asked for input from additional editors. Sorry, but if reopened, I would !vote oppose. This is SYNTH and a particularly tenuous example of SYNTH as the source is so old. I suggest you move on. That’s all I have to say here as I don’t wish to clutter this page. O3000 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, you can do it, at least there will be one vote from uninvolved editor. But please, could you also comment on the second source that I have posted. I agree the 1st one is SYNTH. Bilseric (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Tang Chinese
Seems an open-and-shut case to me, no need to lengthen the discussion. Another editor, perfectly reasonably in my opinion, tried to remove the proposal as ridiculous but the proposer is having none of it. Clearly we need to follow the process here. Please can someone close this out as my contribution discounts me as "uninvolved". This is suitable for non-admin closure. Thank you MegaSloth (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Natalya Meklin
Could an uninvolved Admin assess and close this discussion regarding how awards are dealt with in articles. A summary of the issues is provided at Talk:Natalya Meklin.

The issues have been extensively discussed by two opposing protagonists with comments by other experienced editors (of which I am one). The issue has developed to the status of a dispute between the two protagonists and the article page has been protected. I have specifically requested an Admin close to allow for removal of the page protection.

A close would very likely resolve the dispute and allow a return to normal editing. Alternatively, if no consensus can be identified, a close indicating a further course to resolve the matter would be appropriate.

I believe the two protagonists to be genuine good-faith editors who are simply unable to reconcile their differences without third-party intervention. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * done I made an attempt to get the two participants to summarize their positions so I could close this. Neither one did.  So, I've closed this as stale.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Neo-medievalism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Neo-medievalism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done CarelessWombatLet's Talk! 20:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Restored from archive. undid their closure per a request from . —  Newslinger   talk   00:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
Hasn't been any new input in quite a while. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have NAC'd this, but consensus is obvious, so per WP:RFCCLOSE a formal close is "not necessary or advisable". Geogene (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson
I closed this. It was challenged and taken to AN: Swarm affirmed that the close was correct. It was reopened anyhow. The only additions make it yet more clear that the close was correct. I think this is a waste of editor time and would like to see focus changed to concentration on content. That is, I think reverting the reopen would be best as the open RfC is now a distraction. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done Swarm  {talk}  20:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Antifa (United States)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antifa (United States)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox organization
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox organization? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 18:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:BFR_(rocket)
Would appreciate an experienced editor taking a look at the Proposed Move at Talk:BFR_(rocket). Thank you. N2e (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This WP:RM is still open. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Featured quality source review RfC
Would an uninvolved admin or other experienced editor please close this multi-question RfC when the time is up? The issue is whether to introduce a new way of approaching source reviewing at FAC. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This does not need to be closed at 30 days (some late feedback has occurred due to some notification spamming) and WBOG has already volunteered, for anyone reviewing. So, I object to "close this RFC when the time is up?". --Izno (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * and, we need someone entirely uninvolved to close this. WBOG was suggested by one of the supporters, and I have reservations for other reasons too. I posted here asking for someone uninvolved. Whoever decides to close can decide when it should be done. SarahSV (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've just seen your edit summary "that's really obnoxious". Does that refer to my request here? If yes, what's obnoxious about it? SarahSV (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's obnoxious when we're having a conversation elsewhere for you to stop discussing and do the objectionable thing we were discussing. --Izno (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have moved the close request from the "RfCs" section to the "Administrative discussions" section. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * already done already marked as failed proposal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)? Thanks. feminist (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * already done This was closed awhile ago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done Neutralitytalk 17:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bot policy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * already done by Primefac. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * done - Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Stokes%27_theorem
Open more than two weeks, and all productive discussion here has ceased. It was reposted earlier this week, but that was unnecessary.  Calidum   16:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * --DannyS712 (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done --DannyS712 (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Zodiac_Seats_U.S.
Could an experienced editor relist this or assess the consensus? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Relisted on 22 December 2018 due to lack of consensus and to ongoing discussion.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  17:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * already done by —  Newslinger   talk   10:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Move review
This will soon finish. Want to make sure it has a proper closure before making the necessary changes. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , speaking as someone who hates process for the sake of process, what's the need of any closure? Be bold and just invest the changes:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 10:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you hate process for the sake of process, but I find it important that changes to Wikipedia processes be adequately processed, so as to ensure they actually represent the procedural consensus of the community. In my time, I've seen too many covert changes to such processes, along with the procedural chaos such changes beget... RGloucester  — ☎ 15:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , to quote from WP:RFCEND:-- If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary . &#x222F; WBG converse 17:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it is contentious (see WP:CONLIMITED). Please spare me this tirade. I simply came to request a closure, which isn't too much to ask. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologise, if this came off as a tirade:( I hope that you have well-advertised the discussion (as ought be) and in that case, I've a hard time seeing this as any contentious. We agree to disagree:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 04:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * already done by —  Newslinger   talk   10:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2018 Wentworth by-election
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2018 Wentworth by-election? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * done Cinderella157 (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Norse_colonization_of_North_America
. Discussion seems to be at a standstill.  Calidum   13:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  00:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Patton
Requesting that an uninvolved editor determine a consensus for a possible change of primary topic from George S. Patton to something else. Jalen D. Folf  (talk)  18:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:List of Christian denominations
Requesting that an administrator (or very experienced editor) look to close a merge proposal between List of Christian denominations and List of Christian denominations by number of members. Klbrain (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done (non-admin closure) as no consensus for merge by --John Cline (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2018 December 17
Would an admin assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2018 December 17? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done by at 00:45, 30 December 2018. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Mohammad bin Salman
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mohammad bin Salman? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done by -- The SandDoctor  Talk 19:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jackie Walker (activist)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jackie Walker (activist)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done -- The SandDoctor Talk 19:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done -- The SandDoctor Talk 20:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Don't stuff beans up your nose
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Don't stuff beans up your nose? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  18:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Atrocities in the Congo Free State/1
I opened this reassessment so would like someone else to close it. I can do all the technical stuff. Thanks in advance. AIRcorn (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * &#x222F; WBG converse 10:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done today by User:Winged Blades of Godric. Abequinn14 (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
We need this 1-month old Rfc closed with a decision :) GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , decision?
 * That's the only two lines, I'm going to write in my closure-statement if I (at all) choose to ignore the need of writing closure-statements, where the consensus is reasonably clear. Do you expect any different outcome?
 * There appears to be sentiment that in light of the abundance of spam-editing, we ought to remove our prohibitions against spamming and instead codify such behavior as appropriate but I don't understand the motivations.
 * If you are seeking for enforcement of policy-based-consistency, a pointer to the guideline at the t/p(s) of the defaulting editors ought to usually suffice. And, any dispute ought be easily resolved with the usual t/p discussion (after all, MOS is a guideline; not a policy) with the involved editors. Pending that, an RFC may be launched (if he/they really feels that his reasoning is strong enough, to deviate from MOS and you disagree). On the other hand, if it's plain IDHT behaviour, ANI is handy-enough. Appropriately advertising the dispute at the MOS t/p(s) and other centralized pages (If it's about Narendra Modi, inform WT:INB and the like......) also helps a lot.
 * There also appears to exist a clique of editors who tag-team and remain steadfast-opposed to these established-guidelines, thus affecting local consensus. But, that's one of the much-broader problems of Wikipedia (hardly unique to MOS) and a month-long discussion won't give you any satisfying answer. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you transfer your decision, over to the closed Rfc-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , when? GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done and the ping failed to reach me. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It failed because did it in two edits, not one - signature in the first, link to you in the second. That always breaks the notification. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There also appears to exist a clique of editors who tag-team and remain steadfast-opposed to these established-guidelines, thus affecting local consensus. But, that's one of the much-broader problems of Wikipedia (hardly unique to MOS) and a month-long discussion won't give you any satisfying answer. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you transfer your decision, over to the closed Rfc-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , when? GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done and the ping failed to reach me. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 08:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It failed because did it in two edits, not one - signature in the first, link to you in the second. That always breaks the notification. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 147
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 147? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 6
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 6? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done -- The SandDoctor Talk 23:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States
Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  17:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:David Wolfe (raw food advocate)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Wolfe (raw food advocate)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 18:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

RSN
Can an admin or an experienced user assess the consensus in this discussion please? -- M h hossein   talk 13:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , not done; discussions are not always meant to be closed. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 09:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Winged Blades of Godric: Hey, this is not a general discussion. Anyway, what's the outcome of this discussion? -- M h hossein   talk 13:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , there was no particular question other than a garden-variety poser about the reliability and usability of Think-Tank pieces.
 * Whilst there's a rough consensus that they ought be always attributed to (for statements derived from them), there's not much of any agreement about the exact cases, where they can be used and about how to use them, without violating DUE. Basically, as things stand, there exists a reasonable scope to exercise nuance and editorial discretion on a case-by-case basis.
 * If you are looking for a closure/bright-line outcome; please create a new discussion with highly-specific queries.
 * IMO, any future editor will be far more benefited by reading the entirety of the discussion and I have objections to closing a sparsely-attended (and non-advertised) discussion about a generic-poser; that covers a vast array of sources. FWIW, neither do I see any immediate reasons to stifle a free-flowing discussion; even before the elapse of a fortnight.
 * Regards, &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, any future editor will be far more benefited by reading the entirety of the discussion and I have objections to closing a sparsely-attended (and non-advertised) discussion about a generic-poser; that covers a vast array of sources. FWIW, neither do I see any immediate reasons to stifle a free-flowing discussion; even before the elapse of a fortnight.
 * Regards, &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regards, &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regards, &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Cove Rangers F.C.


Can an admin (expect GiantSnowman) close this discussion as GiantSnowman requested in WT:FOOTY? Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done about four months ago. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:YouTube
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:YouTube? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 6
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 6? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Ryan
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Ryan? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Alt-right
This RfC appears to have run its course. Could someone uninvolved please come along, outline what the consensus is, and enact it? I'd do it myself (and indeed tried) but given the controversial nature of the article's contents and the polarisation of editors there it looks like we will need some uninvolved. Thanks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alt-right? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Omonoia Square
Requesting that an uninvolved editor look to close a merge proposal between Omonoia Square and Omonoia, Athens. Klbrain (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done Closed no consensus. -- The SandDoctor Talk 22:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kach_and_Kahane_Chai
Requesting that an uninvolved editor look to close a merge proposal between Kach and Kahane Chai and Sicarii (1989).Emass100 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done -- The SandDoctor Talk 22:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide? There is a clear consensus for the proposal. Some editors want to limit the RfC to courthouses, which makes how this RfC should be closed less clear so I am not closing the RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done -- The SandDoctor Talk 00:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

done Cinderella157 (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Los Angeles
Could an editor decide what the consensus on this discussion relating to the name parameter on the infobox of Los Angeles as it has gone quiet. The debate is whether it should be "Los Angeles, California" or just "Los Angeles".  IWI  ( chat ) 23:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * as a (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * . Oppose. Sorry, but no.
 * There is no clear consensus, even - any consensus. Discussion and arguments are balanced. PS. agreement by user:Trovatore is not consensus, this is one user, please wait for the statements of other users.
 * User:ImprovedWikiImprovment ("IWI") is the main opponent for one option, the user who applying (reporting) above, this user is completely biased (not objective). Just read the discussion to see that this user is too much involved to push his version.
 * week is too short time for discussion with other users, not everyone has time to actively edit at the turn of the year 2018/2019. Post by Trovatore (3 January 2019), post by IWI (5 January 2019) and this day user:DannyS712 blocked discuss? Nonsense. If nobody would edit the discussion for a week - ok, but the discussion is still active.
 * , please restore discussion . Subtropical -man  (talk / en-2 ) 00:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. I jumped the gun on this, and have reopened the discussion. Sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Baraboo High School
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Baraboo High School? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done - Closed as option 4. - MrX 🖋 20:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Stéphane Grappelli
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stéphane Grappelli? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 20:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Christian persecution complex
It's been a month and this merge discussion could use an official close from an unaffiliated editor. czar 20:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian_Civil_War
It would be great if an uninvolved and experienced editor could assess the consensus. Thanks. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * After less than five days? I don't think so, RfCs normally run for thirty days, unless it is clear that everybody agrees. Here, they don't - so, not done. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a clear consensus, but a single user is using the "ongoing discussion" as a justification to filibuster the implementation of the change. It should be closed, or at the very least the change should be implemented in the meantime. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Leap year
The editor who described stackoverflow.com as peer-reviewed and used it as a source recently also used it in the same article in 2012, so a formal close is requested to try to make sure the result of the RfC sticks. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please fix the link, it goes to an external site which is nothing to do with Wikipedia. If we have been holding Wikipedia RfCs off-wiki, then I call "foul" on this one. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The error was based on the unescaped ":" in the section name. I fixed it. See Help:URL for more information. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the error was the lack of a page name, and . There is no need to escape a colon when it occurs in the fragment, see RFC 3986 Appendix A, specifically the entries for   and  . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC) 23:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done by User:Cinderella157 signed,Rosguill talk 19:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
Hasn't been any new input in quite a while. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists
Would an uninvolved editor who is experienced with categories and lists please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists, regarding the idea of allowing redirects of the type List of X→Category:X? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth Warren
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elizabeth Warren? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Earth
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Earth? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 19:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bekir Fikri
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bekir Fikri? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 00:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2.0 (film)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2.0 (film)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Archived to Talk:2.0_(film)/Archive_2. -- The SandDoctor Talk 10:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   22:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Origin of the Romanians
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Origin of the Romanians? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   23:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 2)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 2)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   00:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Equaliser (mathematics)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Equaliser (mathematics)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   11:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Could someone officially close this RfC regarding the reliability of sciencebasedmedicine.org? It's clearly run its course. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * -The weighed-consensus looks extremely clear but I would prefer another week. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The page was archived before the RfC was closed. Don't know how this changes things, but the archive is available at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 253. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * done. An additional week has elapsed. —  Newslinger  talk   13:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Undone (Special:Diff/876790640). The discussion was restored (Special:Diff/876670423) to WP:RSN, but wasn't removed from the archive. —  Newslinger  talk   13:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please remember to delete discussions from the archive when restoring them to the noticeboard or talk page. Thanks! —  Newslinger  talk   13:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   11:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bird Box
It’s been more than 7 days and the discussion has gone quiet, but consensus isn’t clear.  IWI  ( chat ) 14:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, this was relisted on January 14, and can be relisted once again on January 21. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's embarrassing; I didn’t see that lol.  IWI  ( chat ) 15:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * (withdrawn)  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  15:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Road Warrior Hawk
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Road Warrior Hawk? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 19:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kildin Sami orthography
A difficult close, because any decision will result in the move of a number of pages--either to bring the titles involved in the request in line with other related titles, or to revert a number of other moves that were not included in the request. Another factor is an earlier round of undiscussed renaming that moved many of these articles away from the titles under which they were created. The discussion has been relisted twice but no new comments have been added since January 1. Any help is appreciated, even if it is to assist in identifying the full range of page titles that will be affected by the close. Dekimasu よ! 01:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done by another editor.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  23:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)
Could an experienced editor relist or assess the consensus at Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  21:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Stav Shaffir
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stav Shaffir? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   01:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * by Winged Blades of Godric. -- The SandDoctor Talk 00:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , .  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 00:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion is now archived at . —  Newslinger  talk   04:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done by —  Newslinger   talk   22:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Ryan
, it's been over a week since the last post. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   23:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Government shutdowns in the United States
Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Government shutdowns in the United States? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Done, I closed the discussion in favor of the consensus to leave the name as is. The redirect page Government shutdown was changed to a disambiguation page, containing the US shutdown page, but leads readers to either the loss of supply or budget crisis articles. ∻ℳcCunicanℴ 10:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – Sorry, incorrect, please see your talk page.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  11:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done by another editor.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  04:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:(486958)_2014_MU69
A user with experience at requested moves is needed to close this fairly long discussion.  Calidum   20:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 10:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Alsee (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done by at 21:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC).  --DannyS712 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Fassbender
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Fassbender? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, although I disagree with the conclusion. signed,Rosguill talk 19:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 15
Could an experienced editor relist this or assess the consensus? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done No consensus. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/10 year challenge
Could an experienced editor relist this or assess the consensus? There seems to be significant debate as to whether or not to keep or merge the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done yesterday by a different user. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Close --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 14:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Washington Times
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Washington Times? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * as a (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Interstate 75 in Georgia
The conversation here has not progressed much in over a month. Involved parties seem split equally in favor of merging and not merging. I am requesting for a user who is not involved to close the merge discussion. ∻ℳcCunicanℴ 11:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of cities in Israel
Could an uninvolved and experienced editor please assess the consensus of this discussion and officially close it. Thanks in advance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy
Needs closure. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 20:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   05:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Defamation League
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anti-Defamation League? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   07:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2018 November
I think it's safe to say that everything that needs to be said has been said 8 or 9 times and useful discussion has died down in this very-much-over-time discussion. If someone would like to be a hero and tackle this I'm sure we'd all be grateful. (COI notice: I was the RM closer.) ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am throwing my hat in the ring. But, this's needing a trio-closure. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but please let an admin(s) do it. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't always find three admins, so if two admins will help with the close, then one experienced non-admin along with them should be sufficient.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  00:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Recuse in light of this thread. Good luck in finding folks to close it. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 05:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This keeps up, and I'll close it. And ya'll know what outcome that will bring. EH will probably go "Off with her head!" Happy New Year, folks.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  17:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: Move review has been relisted to January 2019.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  08:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , put it back to November Hhkohh (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that Amakuru has reverted you. Relisting is not done to gain a consensus but to improve participation and if there ain't any consensus for a clear-outcome, No consensus (generally defaulting to endorse) is a perfectly valid closure. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 08:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Lest we forget, no consensus at MRV may also result in relisting the RM. And, not to be argumentative, however relisting is most certainly done to gain a consensus!  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  09:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur on first point. As to the latter, see WP:RELIST and point 2 of WP:RELISTBIAS; which though concerned with deletion-discussion; is pretty clear on the aspect of relisting a heavily-participated discussion to seek consensus. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the good faith effort to move it along, Paine, but I honestly don't think relisting is the answer here... everything that can be said has been said ten times already, and we just need it put out of its misery! Whether it's no consensus or not, I wouldn't like to prejudge - that's up to the closing admin... a case could be made for either overturn or no conensensus probably. Someone will deal with it eventually though. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Only 10?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs) 09:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

done Cinderella157 (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 15
Would an admin assess the consensus here? Thanks. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
Would an experienced editor assess consensus on the Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections discussion? Please also remove DNAU template when you are done. Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Donesigned,Rosguill talk 21:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The RfC was archived without being closed. Don't know how this changes things, but the archive is available at Village pump (policy)/Archive 148. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   05:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Citation Style 1? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listing this. I would like to add that the closer should be familiar with WP:BOTPOL. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   07:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox election
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox election? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   06:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   06:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jack Evans (Washington, D.C. politician)/Archive 3
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jack Evans (Washington, D.C. politician)/Archive 3? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This took way too long. Done &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  22:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Elaine Herzberg
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of Elaine Herzberg? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (non-admin closure) done as: "Consensus convincingly against renaming article" by--John Cline (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  00:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  01:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Storm
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Operation Storm? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done 2 days ago by --DannyS712 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 15
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 15? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done by GoldenRing 5 days ago --DannyS712 (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 6
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 6? The discussion was reopened per Deletion review/Log/2019 January 12. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/MAGAkids incident
Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Articles for deletion/MAGAkids incident? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Vanamonde 4 days ago --DannyS712 (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Now in Village pump (policy)/Archive 148, it would be nice if someone could close this! Fram (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to close it, but I don't know what the procedure is if it has already been archived. Do I close it, and then post the result of the close? (Also I'm not an admin, so if don't think I should close a policy rfc that's fine) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think unarchiving it would be best, so people at VPP at least get to see the closure. I personally have no objection against a non-admin closure, no idea how others feel about this in this case of course. Fram (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a couple more days for any objections, then I'll draft a close and unarchive it. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have drafted a close here. Barring any objections, I'm going to close it in the archive and post my summary to the main VPP alerting people of the result. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done, result posted to WP:VPP. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 21:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal
This is getting complicated. I think the article in question should probably be trashed, thus Articles_for_deletion/Astronomical_bodies_in_pseudoscience_and_the_paranormal, but User:Jehochman requested that we not have the discussion so that the merger discussion could end. I think there are bigger issues at play (we've discussed a bit on Jehochman's talk page), and he suggested I request a snow close for the merger discussion, which, as the AfD nominator, I would agree to though I'd like the discussion to continue for how to handle astronomical pseudoscience. In any case, in need of an admin to sort it out. jps (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion that is linked directly here was initiated by at 22:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC) - more than a year ago. Despite being described as a merge request (it begins with a link to Proposed mergers), it seems to indicate that another closely-related discussion took place elsewhere in December 2017 - but there is no link to that other discussion. It appears to have been intended to be no more than a notification of another discussion (in line with WP:MULTI), but the sentence "Discuss here." means that other people have used it as the actual discussion venue.  where was that earlier discussion held? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of another discussion having taken place. I just opened the discussion on the article's talk page at Talk:Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal on 8 January 2018 as an uninvolved editor, per a request from the IP address 108.210.216.182 made at WP:PM on 23 December 2017. Richard3120 (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * nd. Article was deleted at Articles for deletion/Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal. —  Newslinger  talk   09:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 11
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 11? There is related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) as no consensus for implementation by --John Cline (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to come back to this one, because it, along with Racism in the UK Conservative Party and Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party (2016–present) look to be a combination of WP:POVFORK and WP:OR (the article titles scream it to begin with), while the RFC feels like just the end result of bureaucratizing all the problems of a POVFORK/OR combo, too. Incidentally, the articles smell of sock / possibly-banned-users (at cursory inspection; they're also relatively recently created).  I can dive deeper into it if truly nobody else is going to (and if I even have time), but this looks like it could be an unnecessary pain to sift through when there might be more overriding/fundamental issues.  I dunno;I might just be crazy.  Others with better knowledge of British politics should please feel free to deal with this. -- slakr  \ talk / 04:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party of the UK is a significant and controversial subject, so I would strongly suggest that the task of resolving this group of RfCs (some 18 of them!) should be assigned to a group of three administrators rather than simply "an experienced editor." Involved editors have already been making changes, such as this, to the article on the basis of perceived consensus. -The Gnome (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that because "the issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party of the UK is a significant and controversial subject" and because of the socking mentioned by slakr, it is likely better to have a panel of three admins close the RfC. Pinging, who closed one of the RfCs, for your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I bailed on it because it was just such a massive task. I don't think we need a three-editor panel for all of them (some of the discussions like #10 are nearly unanimous) but it might be worthwhile for some of the more nuanced ones. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Primefac. I maintain that one and the same group of at least three admins handles this. It's not so much an issue of difficulty as much as of the need for a consistent and consolidated process. It's a rather large RfC. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * done by a with myself,, and each closing some. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
Seems clear there is no consensus for this proposal, though it has the occasional post from editors but mostly repetition of same arguments. There have been several complaints (see talk page) that the proposal is interfering with the function of the COI noticeboard (it should have been created on the talk page). Previous attempt to move it to the talk page was reverted with crude language from two users, one of which is the proposer. I suspect the proposer will only accept an admin closing this. Note that this is the 2nd RFC on the topic (the first was closed after 10 days in 2015), with no change of proposal, and IMO no change of arguments made or balance of opinion on the project. At the very least, could an admin move this to talk, to enable the COI noticeboard to function properly. -- Colin°Talk 08:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See discussion at WP:AN. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done by GoldenRing, Fish and karate, and Ymblanter. Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident
Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done by PackMecEng. Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Messier object
Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Messier object? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:G.I. Generation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:G.I. Generation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Eva Bartlett
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eva Bartlett? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2018 United States elections
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2018 United States elections? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * --DannyS712 (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Mitch McConnell
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mitch McConnell? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Postmodern philosophy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Postmodern philosophy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done as a (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)
As this RfC approaches the 30 days mark and a lack of recent editor involvement, I believe the responses to date would require an uninvolved editor with closure experience to determine the appropriate outcome or extend the discussion. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I expect to spend extra time with this closing; within 24 hours, I will post a result. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Done (non-admin closure) as no consensus, with prejudice by --John Cline (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed the discussion had stopped, and yet the initiator, despite requesting closure above, has unilaterally reopened it past the 30-day standard. -- Netoholic @ 22:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not unilaterally reopen the RfC, I just reinstated the template with new data stamp due to Legobot removing it before the discussion was formally closed, per instruction at WP:RFCEND. Please assume good faith and do not accuse me of starting a new parallel discussion -- Whats new?(talk) 22:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum - I am still working this request. I have assessed consensus and am drafting its summary now. I must attend matters in real life and will not return until evening to conclude my efforts. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I gotta say, that's quite possibly the most un-detailed summary of a closure I've read in a while. Closed with prejudice? Yeesh. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  03:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This closure has been voluntarily amended pursuant a consensus reached in discussion on my talk page. A summary of the amended closure follows: Done (non-admin closure) as no consensus by --John Cline (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
Would an experienced editor assess consensus on the RfC -Which statement is better for the lede section of the MEK article? discussion? Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This has only been open 17 days. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been closed on 8 February 2019 by S Marshall. Should they have posted something here to that effect? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is required, but regardless, this has been done --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Amazon (company)
Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Amazon (company)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done Jalen D. Folf   (talk)  16:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Zeus: Master of Olympus
Is there an experienced editor able to assess the consensus at this discussion? Thanks! Jalen D. Folf  (talk)  04:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Anatolia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anatolia? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 29
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 29? The discussion has been open for almost two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Discussion moved/relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31. If consensus can be assessed, feel free to close the discussion without waiting 7 days per WP:RELIST. Steel1943  (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done: Archived without closure to Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306, brought up again at Administrators' noticeboard, closed by User:Floquenbeam. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Matthias Corvinus
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Matthias Corvinus? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Oswald Boelcke
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oswald Boelcke? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done closed 2 days ago by --DannyS712 (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Indefinitely semiprotecting the refdesk
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Indefinitely semiprotecting the refdesk? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  21:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * waiting for response from &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  22:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Observation: Each of the Reference Desk pages still contains a prominent box at the top announcing that "It has been proposed that the Wikipedia Reference Desks be permanently closed. Please share your thoughts on the matter..." If there is not going to be a decision to close them, then that notice has to go away. I hope we won't be waiting a very long time for a response. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * and I will remove them now, 76.69.46.228. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  04:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  05:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:African humid period
Greetings, could an experienced editor see if this little-frequented discussion has a consensus for or against a merge? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Los Angeles
Gone silent for over a week, long-standing discussion over whether the infobox should read "Los Angeles, California" or just "Los Angeles".  IWI  ( chat ) 23:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 30
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 30? The discussion has been open for almost two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Discussion moved/relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31. If consensus can be assessed, feel free to close the discussion without waiting 7 days per WP:RELIST. Steel1943  (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done (no consensus) &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  04:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

AfD of Yemi Sawyerr
Articles for deletion/Yemi Sawyerr No discussion since nomination besides my vote to speedy delete. Thank you all for your time. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  05:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted by Tone done --DannyS712 (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Turkish occupation of northern Syria
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkish occupation of northern Syria? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note. Though I !voted in this RfC (and therefore am involved), I would still like to point out that the current tally is 6:2 opposed. ( Non-administrator comment ) &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  04:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 19:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , would you mind closing the other RfC as well? &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  03:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Please could an experienced closer close this. There are good arguments either side and editors have expressed that this should be closed. Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 10:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 20:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by . All set. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  03:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done was closed by on 14 February --DannyS712 (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)? Please close this RfC after 16 January 2019. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Has been archived at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 156 without closure --DannyS712 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * --DannyS712 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters
Requesting formal closure of this merge discussion, which has been open for three weeks. czar 01:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done by --DannyS712 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Mumble_rap
Closure requested for Talk:Mumble_rap, which has been open for over a month. -- Flooded w/ them 100s  14:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done This took a while... &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  06:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Albania–Greece relations
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Albania–Greece relations? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a lot to review, but I'm on this one. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  06:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Will notify participants as well shortly. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  16:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:New Year's Day
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Year's Day? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 20:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Aaron Lewis (musician)
Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aaron Lewis (musician)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Already done by --DannyS712 (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jesus? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just bumped the thread an additional 15 more days. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done (nac) Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 01:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Linda Sarsour
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Linda Sarsour? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion was archived before it was closed, and is available at Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 15 --DannyS712 (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Linda Sarsour
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Linda Sarsour? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion was archived before it was closed, and is available at Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 15 --DannyS712 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
This RfC and the one immediately below are part of an ongoing dispute regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht as a military honor. See related discussions at MILHIST project: –dlthewave ☎ 18:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
See above for details. –dlthewave ☎ 18:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 20:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States
Participants were all in agreement here, and I'd like to get started on making these changes, but it would be great if an editor could close the discussion first. Thanks!-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 17:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Citation Style 1? The closer should be familiar with WP:BOTPOL. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * --DannyS712 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Tamika Mallory
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tamika Mallory? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would close this one... if I could understand which sentence the editors wanted to include. Things weren't properly factored out for sure. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  06:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * already done. Considering this, it seems this did not need that much of a formal close. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  16:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Civil War
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian Civil War? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Was archived to Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 47 without closure --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have marked this as done because, given the low participation and the fact that it has been archived, I do not believe that an official closure is needed. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal: Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict
Could an administrator please assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard and close the thread? Thank you all! &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  05:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done by --DannyS712 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of data breaches
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of data breaches? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox television episode
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television episode? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Hi. Would an experienced editor please close this RfC? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * on seeing if this is possible for me to do. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  22:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This requires a user familiar with appropriate grammatical rules. Sorry, . I looked up a lot of stuff about the "Demonstrative that," and I even tried reading this, but alas I could not understand the arguments in this RfC. I do, however, nominate to do it, though. They seem to be in the know about these sorts of things as they are listed under WikiProject Grammar and are still an active contributor. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  23:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done I just did it after the previous closure was reverted. All set. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  22:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Pamela Geller
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pamela Geller? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Covington Catholic High School
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Covington Catholic High School? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Rabbi Akiva
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Rabbi Akiva? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  02:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  03:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:One America News Network
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:One America News Network? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators/2019 request for comment on inactivity standards
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Administrators/2019 request for comment on inactivity standards? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done Cheers! bd2412  T 02:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Cfr of Category:Real Madrid presidents
Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 13 Two admins made "speedy renaming" vote and one more user support the move as well as me as nominator. Matthew hk (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  22:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2019 February
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2019 February? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Village_pump_(proposals)
Whenever someone has a moment, could you please assess consensus at Village_pump_(proposals)? Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * --DannyS712 (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:MMR vaccine and autism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:MMR vaccine and autism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * done the discussion has been closed; the page has been moved --DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Boomerang proposal for Stefka Bulgaria
Would an admin close my report on hounding and harassment by another user, please? -- M h hossein   talk 03:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * not done whole thread should be closed per above request by . &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  17:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No original research/Noticeboard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at No original research/Noticeboard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  20:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Link &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  22:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin:Black Kite reported by Mountain157
Would an admin close this thread started by Mountain157 and its resulting proposal per WP:SNOW? Thank you~! &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  17:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not done &#8213;  MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  22:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7
Would an admin assess the consensus here. The discussion has been open for almost two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Discussion relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5. Steel1943  (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not done. No changes made in a month. &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  19:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Supercentenarian CFDs
At Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7, lot of these that have been open for a month. They probably won't be difficult closes, but this topic has a way of always being controversial. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Links to the supercentenarian CfDs:
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7
 * Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: all above discussions except one have meanwhile been closed as merge. The African-American discussion is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Category:African-American supercentenarians has been relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4. Steel1943  (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not done but will be here for clarity sake. &#8213;  MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  19:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, this was &#8213;  MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  19:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin
Could an experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  18:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Please see the AfD debate &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  18:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

African-American supercentenarians CfD
Previous request for closure listed here. An experienced editor is requested to please close the following discussion: Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4. Thank you, &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  19:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done bd2412  T 04:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Aurora,_Illinois_shooting
Could an experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting and Talk:1993 Aurora shooting? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment - Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting was last relisted on Sunday, February 24, 2019. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done bd2412  T 03:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

CFDs (general)
General comment about CFD closures (not sure if this is the right place to post but please move it to the correct place if you know a better place): there has been hardly any administrators' closures at WP:CFD for multiple weeks on a row now. Consequently, the backlog is growing rapidly. Would a few administrators tackle the pile together please? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done in the sense that administrators started to close discussions again. There is still a considerable backlog. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_16
This is a recent nomination but given the fact that it is a topic of wide interest it would be helpful if an admin would close this discussion and implement the outcome on a reasonably short term. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by User:Timrollpickering. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Gender feminism
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Gender feminism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, but with the conclusion that there is No Consensus. There were good arguments in favor of retention of the topic, including as a book topic, and of dispersal to other articles.  Recommend a new RFC which can be neutrally publicized at various noticeboards and projects.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Could someone please close Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Thank you. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Added "|type=block" to Initiated &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  16:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done by with this edit. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion. Kindest Regards, &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  16:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * closed yesterday by --DannyS712 (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Could an uninvolved administrator please review the consensus and close this discussion? Thank you, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * closed by in Special:Diff/886765920. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of 2017 albums
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of 2017 albums? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not done currently undergoing active major edits as part of a possible compromise. Depending on the effectiveness of these edits in reducing the page size, this will likely be followed by additional discussion, at which point it may or may not be appropriate to nominate the discussion for closure. (non-admin closure) signed,Rosguill talk 06:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC on the notability of theatrical plays
Could an experienced editor please assess whether there is consensus for this proposal. Many thanks, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Consensus.  Recommend tweaking the wording and more publicity.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Falun Gong
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Falun Gong? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * not done the discussion on the talk page is more like a normal content-based discussion than an RfC, and does not need an official close at this time. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Going commando
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Going commando? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 13:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 4
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 4? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done - closed as no consensus. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Space elevator
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Space elevator? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done - There is a consensus against the inclusion of the specific graph that was proposed. See closing note at RFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

RfD: Shut your eyes and think of England
Could an administrator please assess the consensus for this debate and take appropriate action? Kindest Regards, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by . &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User scripts
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:User scripts? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done feminist (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
I just refactored the discussion threads. Would an uninvolved and experienced editor please close any sufficiently opposed alternative proposal per WP:SNOW? There are currently four alternatives to the main proposal, so please use best judgement for which ones should be closed and which possibly should be kept open (if any). Thank you, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done by --DannyS712 (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7
Would an admin assess the consensus here. The discussion has been open for almost two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Discussion relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5. Steel1943  (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * not done. It's been listed here for about a month and a half now. No interest in closing this soon has been shown. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:E (mathematical constant)
Would an admin assess the consensus here. The first of numerous portal deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done by --DannyS712 (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King
Would an admin assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done by --DannyS712 (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas
Would an admin assess the consensus here. Cotingas are a family of birds. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done was --DannyS712 (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 2? Thank you. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singular: Act II‎
Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singular: Act II‎? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * not done There were 64 AfDs filed or relisted that day, none of the others have been brought here - in fact it's rare for an AfD to come here at all: most of those in the archives of this page were brought here by yourself. Why should this one be given preference over the other AfDs from 8 March? It's not as if we are short of AfD closers. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Village_pump_(proposals)
Listed in this section since not a formal RfC; could an experienced editor please assess the consensus of the discussion and close it? UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Closed : "overwhelming support here for a hiatus on the creation of portals using semi-automated tools". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:C.A. Independiente de La Chorrera
The page move has been undertaken by but the RM discussion has not been closed (despite a request). GiantSnowman 15:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * closed by Djsasso --DannyS712 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   01:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   04:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard
Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Administrators%27 noticeboard? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have marked this as done, since of the first 4 proposals, #1 was closed by, #2 and #3 were withdrawn by , and #4 (creating a new speedy deletion criterion) is requested to stay open for a full 30 days, giving it at least 2 more weeks for discussion. Finally, #5 was only proposed on 14 March 2019, so it is not suitable for closure yet. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   07:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Dental implant
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Dental implant? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 11:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Australia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Australia? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 12:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fraser Anning egg incident
This can be safely closed under WP:SNOW. WWGB (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It cannot, as the arguments are very split between merge and delete, which are two distinct outcomes; while it is clear the article is not going to be kept, allowing the AFD to run its course is necessary to allow the community to determine the most appropriate outcome. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 12:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Marked as not done so the request will be archived - the closure was not done per Fish and karate above. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't use, since it hasn't been. The will be detected by ClueBot III, as I explained at User talk:Redrose64. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Acoustic Dreams (disambiguation)
Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Acoustic Dreams (disambiguation)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * already done - moved by and closed by  --DannyS712 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard
Would an involved inexperienced editor please supervote at Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard? Thank you. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 07:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're killing me here! lmao &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 06:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 08:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Michel Temer
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michel Temer? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done - Closed as consensus that Temer left office on December 31, 2018.- MrX 🖋 11:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of 2017 albums
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of 2017 albums? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done - Closed as: rough consensus for not splitting the article. - MrX 🖋 11:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 10:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race
Requesting someone close this based on the developed consensus. Thanks. Nihlus 13:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 14:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 18:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Johann Mickl
Since I am an involved editor, could an experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:Johann Mickl? I beleive the general consensus is to delist the article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   08:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Suki Waterhouse
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Suki Waterhouse? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * its pretty evenly split and hasn't had very much discussion --DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Marking as done. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * its pretty evenly split and hasn't had very much discussion --DannyS712 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Marking as done. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

William McNulty (relief organization founder) into Team Rubicon
could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus on this long-standing merge proposal, discussed at Talk:Team Rubicon. Klbrain (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements? The formal RfC period has run and The last comment was made nine days ago. Thanks, Tvc 15 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This was not a formal RfC, the tag was never used. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Red rose64 &#x1f339;, I've edited my comment. Is this still the right place to request closure of this discussion from an uninvolved editor, especially in the "Other types" section rather than "RfCs"? Thanks, Tvc 15 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. done. Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:American International Group/Archives/2019
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:American International Group/Archives/2019? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 21:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:World War I
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:World War I? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 21:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cathy McMorris Rodgers? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_19
Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_19? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Xennials
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Xennials? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 21:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Keith Urban
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Keith Urban? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   07:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 26
Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 26? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your impatience to have things closed. I initiated the CfD and I'm very happy to let it run its course until a volunteer has had time to adequately review and assess the discussion. Things do get backlogged once in a while. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 02:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, we are almost at 30 days, so we might as well close this. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard? I think that every discussion has been open for one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * partially done: Proposals 1 and 3.5 were closed by, 2 and 3 were withdrawn, 4 is an RfC that should stay open for 30 days, the first survey is proposal 5 was snow closed by , the second survey of proposal 5 isn't ready for closure and was only opened on 14 March, proposal 6 is an RfC that should stay open for 30 days was withdrawn , and proposal 7 was only opened today. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Marriott International
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marriott International. Matthew hk (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done - Consensus for option A - inline reference definitions. - MrX 🖋 20:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   06:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done - Taking into account the quantity and strength of the arguments, and evidence cited by several users, consensus exists to deprecate Telesur as a source (Option 4). - MrX 🖋 22:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   04:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done - Closed as consensus for option 3. - MrX 🖋 23:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5
Already relisted once. Discussion stalled since 25 February 2019. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done by a few days ago. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gibraltar? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States and crime
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States and crime? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 23:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of Aya Maasarwe
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Killing of Aya Maasarwe? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On hold Comment no consensus yet - "Israeli" has 10 !votes while "Palestinian-Israeli" and "Palestinian citizen of Israel" each have 6. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 15:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done — JFG talk 19:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump/Archive 2
Consensus is quite obvious; nevertheless I would prefer that an uninvolved editor formally close this, because it affects several articles. — JFG talk 19:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done and I will note that this feels like an edge case per WP:RFCCLOSE as to whether a formal close was even needed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and thanks for your help. — JFG talk 20:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jack_Evans_(Washington,_D.C._politician)
This RfC had a bad close and was recently re-opened per the request of, so we're now looking for an uninvolved admin to come in and do a close. Thanks for the help! - Sdkb (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

done Cinderella157 (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good articles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Good articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 20:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Center for Immigration Studies
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Center for Immigration Studies? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Electric smoking system
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electric smoking system? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Shapiro
Simple problem but hard to reach consensus. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 16:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators%27 noticeboard
Since Proposal 4 is approaching one month, could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Administrators%27 noticeboard? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedStatesian (talk • contribs) 12:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Gab (social network)
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess consensus at Talk:Gab (social network) and close the discussion? The last comment was ten days ago. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 21:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 20
Discussion stalled since Feb 20. Looks to me like a straightforward close. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006
Could an uninvolved admin look at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006 and assess the consensus? It appears pretty clear here, and has been open for 12 days (a long time for ANI), with no new comments being added in days. Could an admin action and close this ASAP? Thanks! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Dusti. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment There seems to be a weak consensus for removing the political position parameter, but given that only a handful of editors participated in the discussion I'm hesitant to rule in favor of a consensus with such wide-ranging consequences. signed,Rosguill talk 18:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have relisted the RfC to solicit more input. done. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Abby Martin/1
Could the consensus on whether to delist or keep the Good Article status of this article be assessed please. I will help out with the technical side of the close if needed. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't normally handle GA (or FA) matters here, hence the absence of  from the valid values for the type parameter of the  template. Have you asked at WT:GAR? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I usually get a better response here. Not many editors are interested in the GAR process, I have ended up closing most of them myself in the last year or so. I don't feel comfortably closing this one given my edits to address the concerns were reverted. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done. I think it is reasonable to request closes of Good article reassessments here since WT:GAR does not get much of a response compared to this noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2019 March
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2019 March? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done by B dash. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bottled water
One of a number of non-unanimous portal or complicated MfDs that were clogging up MfD to the point that they were no longer displaying properly on the page. The teechnical issues have been fixed by Xaosflux, but the discussions still need closure. I am involved by way of having strong opinions on portals, so I'm avoiding closing contentious portal MfDs. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done — xaosflux  Talk 01:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2019 March 22
Would an admin assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2019 March 22? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2019 March 25
Would an admin assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2019 March 25? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 2
Would an admin assess the consensus here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion has meanwhile been relisted. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2019 March 19
Would an admin assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2019 March 19? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of 2017 albums
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess consensus at Talk:List of 2017 albums and close the discussion? I previously closed it, but the close was challenged, so I reopened it. - MrX 🖋 11:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Subscription required
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Subscription required? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a formal close is unnecessary for this one as it just seems to be a discussion of the implementation of some technical specifications without much disagreement, but would appreciate it if an editor more experienced with templates could confirm this assessment. signed,Rosguill talk 18:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a formal close would be useful for the Bots/Requests for approval. The RfC initiator wrote: "Maybe the purpose of this RfC is not clear? I will write a bot to fix this problem. It's no problem (well it won't be an easy bot). But, I can't open a BRFA as the only person who wants a bot. Thus this RfC. It's where you say 'Yeah I want a bot' so the BRFA admins can check off community support for the bot." Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * done. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ministry of Transport
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ministry of Transport? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Cunard (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * archived without closure to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive76 --DannyS712 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC
Would a panel of three experienced editors (or administrators if they so choose) please assess the consensus at Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC? The closure will be a bit of a minefield, with many simultaneous discussions taking place in the various sub-sections. The closure is already overdue since the closure date was set as 17 March and listed at the top of the page from the outset, a date which has now passed. This RfC was conducted in accordance with the following ARBCOM motion:, and its closure should conform to the motion as well. Closers might want to additionally take a look at discussions on the corresponding talk page for the RfC Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing RfC discussion for recording consensus. Until 2 more editors are willing to close. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK  ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 17:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to help - only 1 more needed --DannyS712 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * : sorry, nothing personal against you, but I'm not quite convinced you have the necessary experience for this task. What we need here are highly experienced editors who are deeply familiar with the relevant content policies and with the intricacies of content creation in POV-sensitive areas. Sorry, but you've been around only for six months and I can find no record of you dealing with policy issues of this complexity before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * His level of contribution seems adequate to me, despite the 6 month period his account has been active. - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He seems to me like an editor who has been racking up a high edit count by means of a lot of routine gnoming work in the areas of XfDs, responding to edit requests and the like, but no substantial content maintenance experience in politically sensitive areas, and nothing I can find that shows him deeply engaging with complex policy issues. Sorry, but no. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I probably should not have an opinion as someone who is volunteering as one the closers but I do agree with FPAS' viewpoint that editors might regard Danny as inexperienced due to their relative inexperience in edits and age. I'm moving this to the main AN noticeboard for more visibility — and more opinions as to who should be part of the closing panel; and an opportunity for editors to opine on the suitability of editors. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 12:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * done by, , and --DannyS712 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples
This MfD is so old and so horrible that it somehow got removed from the MfD "Old Business" section despite not being closed. Please, someone close it - I commented, so I can't. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC) (Note: it's been replaced on the page, but it's still in need of a close &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC))
 * Done, hadn't realized it was listed here! Probably should've checked. ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 17:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Evangelical Christianity
I feel that the discussion has received adequate input for a close to occur. A participant in the discussion who has !voted for deletion later relisted it, possibly in hopes for more delete !votes to potentially be posted. North America1000 09:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 17:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff
One of a number of non-unanimous portal or complicated MfDs that were clogging up MfD to the point that they were no longer displaying properly on the page. The teechnical issues have been fixed by Xaosflux, but the discussions still need closure. I am involved by way of having strong opinions on portals, so I'm avoiding closing contentious portal MfDs. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed by User:Amorymeltzer on 02:22, 11 April 2019. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2019 March
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2019 March? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Chowkidar_Chor_Hai
can someone close the discussion at Talk:Chowkidar_Chor_Hai -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * not done for now - relisted. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race
This RfC needs to be reclosed after the intial one was reverted through AN. If you close it, please be mindful of the actual arguments made and the consensus reached. Nihlus 19:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2 Hearts (2007 song)
I'm looking for the closure of the RFC if consensus has been reached. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 15:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting
Could an experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not done - RFC is still active. There are reasonable arguments being advanced both for and against, so that the snowball closure rule does not apply.  RFC left open.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, the RFC has been open for over one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's been open for 16 days; but WP:RFCs typically run for thirty. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I tried to say at User talk:Jax 0677, and was told by Jax0677 to provide diffs and keep the discussion in one place, when I was trying to keep the discussion in a less public place. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to un-archive the RfC as the bot has archived it? Bus stop (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are allowed to close it even if its archived, but if you want I suggest manually copy-pasting it from the archive to the talk page, with a note explaining. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to close it as I am a participant in it. I wanted it un-archived to allow further discussion. Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I have moved the discussion back to the talk page, and changed the archive age to 30 days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, that looks perfect, to me. Bus stop (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

done. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, good to hear, we can close the discussion at the end of this week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment -, this discussion, which is now close to 150 kB in size, has now run for 30 days, and can be closed or relisted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Jax 0677 - I do not plan to close this RFC. For two reasons, both of which I do not need to disclose, I might not be neutral.  Also, RFCs are not relisted.  XFDs, which run for 7 days, may be relisted, but RFCs, which run for 30 days, are not relisted.  They may be closed as No Consensus, and the closer may advise that a new RFC be posted, but they are not relisted in the way that XFDs are.  Perhaps you are confusing different procedures.  If so, please read the policies on Requests for Comments and Deletion and Deletion Debates.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment -, thanks for observing WP:COI. Note that I said "closed or relisted", which means not that it should ever be relisted, but that I am indifferent between the two.  Regarding the 30 days minimum for RFC, I will keep it in mind in the future, but I never asked any closer to go against policy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Jax 0677 - See my comments on your talk page. No, I do not have a conflict of interest.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RfCs can be relisted - [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Cunard&offset=20190311015500&limit=7 does it frequently] - see WP:RFC, paragraph beginning "To extend a current RfC". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Redrose64 - Okay. As long as I am not told that I should be closing an RFC that hasn't run 30 days, and as long as I am not planning to close the Aurora RFC for two reasons that have nothing to do with COI, fine.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that an RfC is no different from an ordinary content discussion in the following regard: It can be closed whenever it seems to have run its course, when all stated arguments have been sufficiently discussed and the likelihood of any significant new arguments is deemed to approach zero. That can be one week or twelve weeks or more (I recently closed an RfC after 8 days), and it is not connected to the amount of time before the bot de-lists the RfC. If most RfCs are closed after 30 days, that's only because (1) editors misinterpret the de-listing as "time to close" and (2) there is often resistance to closing "early" even if the circumstances warrant it, and most of us prefer to avoid that controversy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is true that the closer will need to distinguish between statements of position (!votes), some of them well-reasoned, and a lot of mostly marginal discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Century
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Century? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Carnage (comics)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Carnage (comics)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill
Proposal to merge two project pages. Would an experienced editor please assess and close the discussion? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 19:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
I don't think this was advertised as an RfC, but either way it would probably benefit from a formal closure by an experienced editor. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 07:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't a formal RfC - no tag was used. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I just requested a closure of the same discussion, but didn't realize this request was already active (in the "RfCs" section). I second this request, and have moved it to "Other types of closing requests". —  Newslinger  talk   05:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jonathan Swan
Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? BC1278 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 12 April 2019
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307
Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * not done Thread archived without official closure at Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive307, original closure reverted, RfC (Talk:RuPaul%27s Drag Race) reclosed by --DannyS712 (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done to record the consensus and outcome. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan Omar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ilhan Omar? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/February
Could an experienced editor relist these, or assess the consensus at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/February? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Stub sorting proposals don't get relisted, they stay on the same monthly page until closed. See WP:WSS/P item 6. I'm guessing that, who usually closes these, is letting debate proceed for a while longer - after all, there are still some open from November 2018. Pegship, do you want somebody else to close these? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If anyone can determine a consensus, they're welcome to close them. I've left them un-closed just to see if anyone has more to say; if not, I'll be happy to close them by end of March, which is not that long a stretch for the (much-depleted) troupe of stub sorters. Cheers! Her Pegship (speak) 22:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * march has ended, and no one commented on the proposals since March 18. Any updates? --DannyS712 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have closed the discussions, though I'm not the only person qualified to do so. I wasn't sure what conclusions had actually been reached, so I took a guess. Her Pegship (speak) 20:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Would an administrator (as it's about deletion policy an admin is needed) please assess the consensus of this discussion and formally close it. Although consensus looks (to me as someone involved) clear, it does need formal closure to avoid a similar discussion in the near future. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   10:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by --DannyS712 (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/January
Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/January? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by --DannyS712 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/March
Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Her Pegship (speak) 02:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2019 March
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2019 March? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The Ohio State University
One of a number of non-unanimous portal or complicated MfDs that were clogging up MfD to the point that they were no longer displaying properly on the page. The teechnical issues have been fixed by Xaosflux, but the discussions still need closure. I am involved by way of having strong opinions on portals, so I'm avoiding closing contentious portal MfDs. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it got relisted a few days ago, but there's been (somewhat active) participation in the past couple days, so I'd be inclined to at least let it go a bit longer. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 17:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Wall_(priest)
This has been going for a while and discussion seems to have petered out. Would an admin please assesses the consensus? Gimubrc (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Chairman
I had thought that narrowing to two choices would be welcome, especially when the closer of the last RM told us "Feel free to re-request the move, perhaps with a more specific proposed title." Somehow it has not been viewed with the purpose I had intended, with a snowball of opposes and several attacks on my character of having some devious underlying agenda. I'd speedy close it myself but who knows what will be thought of me for doing so. Could any non-involved please speedy close this RM that I opened? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Conspiracy theory
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Conspiracy theory? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * --DannyS712 (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * closed --DannyS712 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Achziv
Needs an un-involved editor to close regarding place and place-name. Thanks in advance. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)
Can an uninvolved experienced editor please assess consensus at Talk:Companion (Doctor Who) and close the discussion? Thanks in advance!  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Article history
Can an uninvolved experienced editor please assess consensus at Template talk:Article history and close the discussion? It is a fairly technical question unlikely to garner many more comments.  Ergo Sum  00:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion has been archived at Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive307. I am waiting for a formal close. Capitals00 (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've closed it. Not sure where things are logged, so drop by my talkpage if you need any other pages changed. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done (template needed for archiving bot --DannyS712 (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC))

Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 6 & Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 12
Would an admin assess the consensus here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the Bridges by city CfD was relisted to Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 8. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by, who closed the "by city" CfD (diff), and , who closed the "by city in Ukraine" CfD (diff). --DannyS712 (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
Can an uninvolved admin close this discussion and evaluate the consensus please? Mstrojny (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * the last contribution to the discussion was today and there is no overwhelming consensus either way. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * RfC relisted to try to solicit more input. Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * not done given that it was just relisted, and so far there are only a handful of !votes, there is not enough participation in the discussion about changing a guideline to warrant a close at this time. It can be added here in the future if it becomes ripe for closure. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Slavery
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Slavery? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Plurality voting
Discussion has been open since February 2018, is it alright if someone were to look at this? AtlasDuane (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Five proposals regarding CSD criterion G5 and paid editing, only three of which received any significant input. RfC tag removed by a bot today, last comment was 5 April. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * is --DannyS712 (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Winged Blades of Godric. Thryduulf (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Electric smoking system
The RfC expired a long time ago. The proposal is to replace the entire current article with the entire expand draft. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 01:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 01:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Suki Waterhouse
Issue/suggestion not clearly stated at the outset, multiple edits in question, low participation, overall a mess. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Closed as no consensus.    SITH   (talk)   13:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Gender feminism
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Gender feminism? Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done  SITH   (talk)   20:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Motion picture content rating system
I am requesting a technical "Close without prejudice" of this RFC. The RFC is effectively a re-run of an earlier one at Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system/Archive_1, where the consensus was to select a scheme accessible to color-blind readers. The latest incarnation of the RFC was initiated by an editor now blocked for sockpuppetry. The RFC itself is contaminated by sockpuppetry, as well as putting forward a proposal that deviates from Wikipedia policy. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot close this because I am WP:INVOLVED, but I urge the closer to look at two separate issues here: (i) is there a need for additional level(s); (ii) is there a need to alter the colour scheme of the existing levels in order to fit in the desired new level(s). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * done by   SITH   (talk)   20:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on the wording of the lede of "Marc-André ter Stegen"
Would an experienced uninvolved editor kindly close the Rfc to nail the coffin on the edit war behind it. Made this close request as the nominator of the Rfc. Matthew hk (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 11:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 7
This TfD has been open for over two months, with the last comment more than a month ago. Could someone please close it? * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">has returned 19:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bohemian Rhapsody (film)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bohemian Rhapsody (film)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   09:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fascism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC opened on March 6th and was closed by bot after 30 days.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "closed" - Legobot always removes a tag thirty days after the next timestamp following the tag. This is not closure; bots are not able to judge consensus so they cannot close a discussion. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks. This is my first time asking for an RfC close, my terminology is wrong.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Archive 1? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Otto Warmbier
A contributor has suggested that this RfC (which has now had the RfC tag removed by bot as the standard 30-day discussion period has elapsed) should be reviewed and closed by an experienced editor or admin. Last comments were on 6 April. Muzilon (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Azad Kashmir Regiment
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus for/against a merge at Talk:Azad Kashmir Regiment. Klbrain (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Caryn Marooney
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Caryn Marooney? —  Newslinger  talk   02:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)
Could an admin please close this? It is a contentious issue.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * .  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  16:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by --DannyS712 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)