Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 28

Administrators' noticeboard
Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * archived without official closure at Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive308 --DannyS712 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Due to its relevance, I recommend formal closure of this thread. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Not done A specific example of editors disagreeing whether a certain edit counts as a "revert" does not require closing. Both editors who edit-warred were at fault here and it's clear there is no consensus that El C's judgement was incorrect or that the WP:3RR policy needs to be changed. The fact that the discussion died indicates as much. If you wish such a change to happen, propose it in a RFC. Regards So  Why  16:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not done - Does not require a formal closure or a formalized reading of consensus. See AN. Users have already been advised the proper way to make a policy proposal should they wish to do so. ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, per WP:BRD, I think we should have an administrator not involved in this discussion make that decision, not you, nor I. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Not done As an uninvolved admin, I agree with Swarm here. The discussion brought up a number of previously discussed points but regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU. As WP:PAID is clear that any changes to how we handle paid editing itself "must be conducted in a manner consistent with the standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies", even if there were any consensus to make changes to PAID (which I don't see), it would not be sufficient to actually change the policy. So there is nothing to formally close here which is why I am marking this as not done with the suggestion that those who wish to see a change in policy initiate a RFC as described on WP:PAID and not have such conversations at AN where many editors will not see it. Regards  So  Why  16:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2019 April 10
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 15:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - diff. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard
Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Next time, remember that clear cases such as this one should not be listed here per instruction #1. Regards So  Why  15:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:George Pell
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:George Pell? An editor suggested an impartial closer is needed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This Request for comment was closed by . See the diff. Dolphin ( t ) 13:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done (for the bot) --DannyS712 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Israel
This discussion began more than a month ago, and the discussion seems to have died out almost 3 weeks ago, from this date. There appears to be a clear consensus to change the map image in the main infobox on the Israel article to the proposed map image, with some disagreements on including the West Bank (and the Gaza Strip, in some cases). (In any case, I personally prefer not to include the West Bank in any way until the Israeli Government moves to unilaterally annex the region, given the current criteria for the disputed territories to be both claimed and controlled, such as the maps for Russia, China, and Morocco.) Despite the clear consensus for changing the map image, I feel unconformable with closing the discussion myself, given the highly polarized nature of the topic (Israel) and also because I happen to be the person who began the discussion. As such, I would like an uninvolved administrator to bring the discussion to a close. I will not change the map image until after the RfC has been formally closed.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Would one of you be willing to formally close this RfC? Thanks.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I co-wrote WP:ARBINFOBOX2, so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to close an RFC that has something to do with an infobox. Katietalk 23:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but on top of the fact that I'm a regular contributor to both the article in question and its talk page, I haven't been an administrator for almost four years. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Abecedare (talk) 03:38, 2 May 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)
 * by –  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  21:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * not done for now - discussion was closed and relisted at Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) due to issues with the RM. Given that the discussion has started fresh, it should not be closed at this time. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Tutorial
Can an uninvolved editor evaluate the consensus here and close it? Interstellarity (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * not done Per the note at the top of this page, Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline. - formal closure is not needed at this time, given the dearth of discussion. There seems to be no objections to the proposal, with all discussion focusing on tweaks to the design. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 1
Discussion stalled since 16 March. Please would an admin assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Boxing Day shooting
Could an experienced editor please relist or review this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * .  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  15:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In which case this counts as done. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard
Could an experienced editor please review this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * not done there is already a discussion about 's proposed close at Administrators%27 noticeboard; no need for it to be listed here too. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ercole III d'Este, Duke of Modena
I kindly request the closure of the discussion at page Talk:Ercole III d'Este, Duke of Modena

I have showed that the accuse of Hoax was not true ; I have argued and posted all the necessary proofs including creating a page where all the necessary references are used ; there is also a gallery which demonstrates this. House of Este Orioles

The last person point was dealt; this same person has violated several times the rule to sign.please check. Talk:Ercole III d'Este, Duke of Modena

I would be grateful if you can close the talk page - as the discussion should be closed by now and the evidence should be clear to support this- and remove please the hoax term as it is highly offensive and not true

Thank you for your time

Araldico69 (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * not done There is no clear discussion for closure, no is there any consensus on the page for any specific action. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2019 April 14
This probably needs an admin who understands mathematics to close.  Sandstein  20:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Abecedare (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Could an experienced editor please relist or review this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * shouldn't this be in the Administrative discussions section above?  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  02:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, done. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Clear consensus, ready for closure. ~Swarm~  {sting} 01:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of photographers
Would an experienced editor kindly assess, summarize, and formally close the discussions on multiple aspects of edits to the List of Photographers article? There has been some vigorous discussion, but things have died down now. The RfC is structured into multiple sections, so I encourage the closer to address each section individually. Qono (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I closed three subsections and left the subsection Talk:List of photographers open for another editor to close. Cunard (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2019 April
Would an admin assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2019 April? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by . --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019_Venezuela_uprising
Would like an uninvolved admin to review this one and either close or relist. We don't need an admin, this seemed like the most logical noticeboard to post to. Thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by . --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263
Could an admin please close this? Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * please specify the exact discussion that you want closed. The link carries us to the top of the archive page. You've called it an RM that was initiated today. Please be more specific.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  17:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Amended link in title and removed "rm" from "type." Sorry. Thanks BC1278 (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This matter was addressed by an admin at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents and can be withdrawn here. BC1278 (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * not done per . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Rent regulation
Would an experienced editor please assess whether there is a consensus at Talk:Rent regulation and close if so? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 23:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * the discussion has been open for 10 days and is fairly divided; RfCs normally run for 30 days --DannyS712 (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Circling back - do you think there's a strong enough consensus here? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 05:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * its only run for 30 days, and since I'm not familiar with the topic I'd prefer not to close it myself. But, leaving it here means it will get closed eventually. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I probably do have enough knowledge to close this RfC but will likely not get to it for a few days (at least) so if someone else is ready feel free to jump me and do it but know it's on someone's radar. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think you'll do it? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping Danny. It fell off my radar when I didn't get to before a week of light Wikipedia accessibility. I've now put it somewhere back on the todo list but it's below a few other priorities so if you like you are prepared to do it great otherwise I anticipate getting to it this week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This week has been both busier off-line and less productive on Wiki than I'd hoped which means I have not gotten to this RfC. I also don't know that I will anytime soon, unfortunately. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * done Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of music considered the worst
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of music considered the worst? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done although someone who knows how may wish to make the "not a ballot" template float left of my lengthy closing statement. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed it, because like the template, it's no longer necessary. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
Can an uninvolved editor evaluate the consensus here? In my opinion, I think the consensus is to not implement this proposal. I could be wrong. Interstellarity (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion law
Discussion initiated April 19 in response to Merge to templates placed in March. Consensus seems clear against the merge proposals. Requesting closure by an uninvolved party per WP:MERGECLOSE. Wikiacc (¶) 02:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done. -- The SandDoctor Talk 05:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Jackson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Jackson? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome? An editor suggested here that the RfC should be closed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done although that was entirely a formality. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dungeons & Dragons
Discussion stalled since 1 May 2019‎. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - diff. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:H. P. Lovecraft (2nd nomination)
Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - diff. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Chairman
One or more experienced, uninvolved closers would be appreciated at the above when appropriate. The issue is contentious; hence the request here. SarahSV (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This request is at least 2 days premature. The RM discussion began on May 8, and these typically run one week, and are possibly relisted at the end of that week. I suggest it be ignored for now. -- Netoholic @ 19:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - diff, . --DannyS712 (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Taitā, New Zealand
Could any editor assess and formally close this discussion? It may need to be re-listed (not sure how to do this). + m t  01:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * --DannyS712 (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. El_C 03:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jewish religious clothing
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish religious clothing? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 02:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 15
Templates have been merged into a single template as per majority will. Therefore please close the discussion as keep but merge and delete the template documentation pages Template:Infobox premiership/doc and Template:Infobox presidency/doc. Colonestarrice (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by --DannyS712 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. El_C 20:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:And Then There Were None
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:And Then There Were None? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. El_C 00:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. El_C 04:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Romania
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Romania? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. El_C 04:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   17:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. El_C 04:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. El_C 03:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus and close this RfC? A request for comment was conducted on this discussion and has been recently discontinued. Thanks Mitchumch (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. El_C 02:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:WikiLeaks
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:WikiLeaks? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. El_C 03:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Athens News
Can someone please close this RfC? It has become dormant. Thank you. Dr.  K.  02:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. El_C 02:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. TompaDompa (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * not done According to, after restoring; there is a contesting vote; let it stay open until it goes stale. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In case it's a bit difficult to understand, I meant that there is an opposing vote on the RfC after it was restored, if the discussion goes stale again, feel free to file an ANRFC request. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Computer-generated imagery
Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Gullah
Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here.-- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Amiga
Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done - Artists should not routinely be characterized by genre. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tashkent
Relisted 11 April 2019. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dhallywood
Relisted 11 April 2019. Discussion stalled since 8 May 2019‎. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Halo (2nd nomination)
Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done - jc37 22:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Basque Country (greater region)
Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - diff --DannyS712 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 10
Discussion has died out. Frietjes (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - diff. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rhön
Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   09:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - didn't quite have enough time to finish now but am along the way in closing this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Western Sahara
Discussion stalled since 9 May 2019‎. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 5
Relisted on 5 April 2019. Frietjes (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by . * Pppery * it has begun... 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 7
Relisted on 7 April 2019. Frietjes (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done . * Pppery * it has begun... 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 7
Relisted on 7 April 2019. Frietjes (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * already done by . * Pppery * it has begun...  01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 8
Discussion has died out. Frietjes (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by . * Pppery * it has begun... 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 8
Discussion has died out. Frietjes (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by . * Pppery * it has begun... 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 9
Discussion has died out. Frietjes (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * already done by . * Pppery * it has begun...  01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 13
Discussion has died out. Frietjes (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * already done by  * Pppery * it has begun...  01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_16
Been open for nearly a month, despite lack of opposition. * Pppery * survives 01:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by . * Pppery * it has begun... 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Domestic & General
Discussion stalled since 27 April 2019‎. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  01:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Order of the Arrow
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Order of the Arrow? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just my .02 after reading this over but it seems counter productive to have two related discussions about sourcing of the same idea going on with different timelines. A single reformed discussion to try and achieve a policy compliant whole might be more useful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 1
Relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by . * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 20:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 10
Discussion has died out. Frietjes (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Relisted by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  14:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Donald Trump
Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here.
 * This is close and is likely to be controversial. A Relist may be in order.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Relisted by . * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 14:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Genderqueer
Would an administrator assess the weight of the arguments in this discussion and please close it? It has been open since May 1. Was relisted by StraussInTheHouse on May 9 and again on May 16. It was closed once by StraussInTheHouse before being reopened. It has already been open for far longer than move requests should be open for, and a couple of editors are trying to keep it open for even longer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the ping. I was keeping an eye on the discussion as an uninvolved editor to look into closing it but per User talk:StraussInTheHouse I'm going to abstain from re-closing this particular discussion because I lost track of the discussion due to having to attend to pressing real life issues, so I'm hoping another uninvolved user / page mover / administrator has been keeping an eye on it.  Whoever closes it, if they see fit, is free to use parts of my previous closing rationale if it still applies; but as the discussion has evolved so much since I last visited it, I don't feel it would be appropriate of me to close it.  Kind regards,   SITH   (talk)   11:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * StraussInTheHouse, did one of the relistings interfere with something? Or maybe SMcCandlish knows? I ask because I've never seen a move request take this long to close. Yeah, you listed it a second time, but that was on May 16. Maybe the way the move request is set up, with all of those sections and all of that data, and the WP:NOUN aspect, is too much for some or most editors to want to deal with/assess? I do think that the move request has run its course and that there is nothing else for either side to state that wouldn't be redundant. I feel that it being left open like this is only going to result in more non-policy based votes (especially from newbies), like this recent one, which led to this "not a vote" tag being added. No need to ping me to this section if either of you reply here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't think the relist interfered with anything in terms of bot considerations (I've seen that happen before but it's usually due to super-long rationales or modification of signatures in the nomination. My point was that I was shepherding the discussion through the process with the intention of closing it, as I was uninvolved, however, as I lost track due to a short wikibreak, I don't think I'm the best-placed person to close it.  However, I, and I am sure those on both sides of the debate, will echo the call for an experienced closer, be it an administrator, page mover, or user; because the strength of arguments does factor into the determination of consensus which is why a head count can be misleading when !votes are insubstantial.  If nobody's got round to closing it in a couple of days, I'd be more than happy to set aside a couple of hours to read all the discussion that I've missed and implement a fresh closure, but hopefully there's somebody who has been following it more closely who won't have to do that.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   10:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

done – closed by bd2412.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 8
Already relisted three times. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 8
Already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Taiwan regarding English variety
– Would an administrator assess this issue and take necessary action please. Ythlev (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * not done official closure not needed, discussion is stale and has been archived. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indian cuisine
Discussion stalled since 7 May 2019‎. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion has resumed. Needs either a close or a formal Relist and attention to the need for a close in one more week.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - diff --DannyS712 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 15
Already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - diff --DannyS712 (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Modern history
Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by on 28 May 2019. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_17
I have previously relisted the discussion due to canvassing, and not much has changed. An uninvolved admin is needed here. Thank you. Invalid OS (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - diff --DannyS712 (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Rigel
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rigel? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Teahouse
Would an uninvolved experienced editor evaluate the consensus in the discussion linked above? Interstellarity (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is anyone available to close this? I have waited over a week and no one has responded. Interstellarity  T 🌟 20:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:1948 United States presidential election
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1948 United States presidential election? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bruno Bettelheim
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bruno Bettelheim? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Smaller city portals
Will an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 19
Already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by Plastikspork -- the wub "?!"  23:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 15
Already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by Primefac -- the wub "?!"  23:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 15
Already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by Primefac -- the wub "?!"  23:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 14
Discussion has stagnated. Frietjes (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by Primefac -- the wub "?!"  23:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism in Europe/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fascism in Europe/Archive 1? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Done signed,Rosguill talk 00:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of suicide crisis lines
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of suicide crisis lines? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. El_C 23:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Music Portals by Moxy
Please will an admin assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This may be a train wreck. The closer may need either to tease apart the consensus on each portal or to send the thing back to Square One.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Note that Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 18 (nominated 12 April) depends in part on the outcome of this MfD, so the closing admin should note the closure in the RfD and/or close the RfD if appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Queen RfD has been closed with the consent of the admin who put it on hold. The MfD still needs admin attention. --kingboyk (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * by . * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * re-added here because the relisting was over 8 days ago. Please can someone just close this? --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done I'm not an admin but no admin actions were required for the determination of consensus, lack thereof or even the ability to do so due to the structure of the discussion.   SITH   (talk)   16:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Caribbean
Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion on this MFD has resumed. A Relist may be appropriate.  Robert McClenon (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - Special:Diff/900788254 --DannyS712 (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Asian Americans
Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by .   SITH   (talk)   16:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bitcoin_Cash
The RfC tag for this was removed by a bot as the time elapsed. Could someone look at this and close it or extend the time for discussion by re-adding a tag? I do not know how to do that. If this is not the correct forum for this comment, please forgive me. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Supermarket
Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, the close required no administrative action. Invalid OS (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Move_review/Log/2019_June
Uninvolved admin needed for this one.  Calidum   05:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, non-admin closure. Invalid OS (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian law
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian law? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this RfC is attempting to modify an SNG and so it should have been held at WP:BIO and probably given a CENT notice. 6 people just isn't enough of a consensus - which I don't think exists - to change something like this. I don't think as a NAC it's my place to make this kind of close but it would be my strong feeling on the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --RL0919 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Solomon's Pools
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Solomon's Pools? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --RL0919 (talk) 22:45, 12 June 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) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of the Mesozoic life of Wyoming
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of the Mesozoic life of Wyoming? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --RL0919 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-German sentiment/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anti-German sentiment/Archive 2? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Casualties of the Iraq War/Archive 3
Would somebody please close this RfC? Any help is appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
- we've had ~25 editors weighing in and 6 proposals so far. I weighed in, but don't think there's any consensus in each of the 6 proposals regarding action against Hijiri88 or Lubbad85. There are some boomerang votes in proposal 5 though.  starship .paint  (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Facebook
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Facebook? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   10:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done Special:Diff/902181154 -- The SandDoctor Talk 04:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country
Would an uninvolved experienced editor evaluate the consensus in the discussion linked above? Interstellarity (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * . This is an RFC and it's not been a month yet. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How about now? Interstellarity  T 🌟 21:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Um... 28 days is not a month? Primefac (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Primefac. Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Music Portals by Moxy
Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here. -- Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a train wreck. An attempt to send the train back to Square One failed due to involvement.  It still either needs to be started over or teased apart.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - Special:Diff/902174649 --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Donald Trump
Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus here.
 * This is close and is likely to be controversial. A Relist may be in order.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

====Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 20==== Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 20? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Relisted 8 days, but still open. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, not that I apparently needed to, since the part of the article that triggered the discussion has since been removed. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Santa Claus
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Santa Claus? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   04:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done, Tvx1 23:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a complicated close, there is VOTESTACKING involved, as well as multiple options, closing editor maybe willing to close it along with another administrator. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 08:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Having read your summary, I find myself unsure what your finding is. What does "embrace our differences in a more formal way" even mean? And is your closing rationale an actual finding of consensus, or your opinion as to what editors seemed to lean toward supporting most, but will require another RfC to action? Please clarify both of these things. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:William Barr
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:William Barr? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

done Cinderella157 (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Royal Australian Navy
Discussion stalled since 7 May 2019‎. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done First post here in awhile, but this has been around for more than a month, so I'm closed this. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party (United States)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republican Party (United States)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
It's nearing a month, and it would be good to have a close on this rather than it being archived unclosed. The discussion has died down, so closing it a little early wouldn't be a problem. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:MS-13
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MS-13? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Brexit
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brexit? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Game of Thrones title sequence
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Game of Thrones title sequence? Thanks. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * it hasn't been a month yet --DannyS712 (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 5
already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 23:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 5
already relisted three times. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 23:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 5
already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 23:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 5
already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 23:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Racial policy of Nazi Germany
Could an experienced editor please assess the status of a long-standing merge proposal between Racial policy of Nazi Germany and Nazism and race with several views, and in which discussion has been quiet for more than 4 months. Klbrain (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:WTC Cortlandt (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)
I am asking if a non-involved admin can close this move request. It has been up longer than the allotted time of 7 days (going on 10 now) and there is no consensus to move it. No need for it to be open any longer as it is becoming a train wreck. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * .  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  16:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Closed by  Newslinger  talk   at 03:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)  Paine Ellsworth ,  ed.  put'r there  14:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Juan Guaidó
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Juan Guaidó? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/University portals
Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This may be a train wreck. The closer may need to decide whether to tease apart the nominations and close them or to send this back to Square One.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Input to this MFD is continuing. A formal Relist may be in order, confirming that the MFD has been relisted by remaining open.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - Special:Diff/903640820 --DannyS712 (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 5
already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - Special:Diff/902877794 --DannyS712 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 5
already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - Special:Diff/903411150 --DannyS712 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 5
already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - Special:Diff/902878429 --DannyS712 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 5
already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - Special:Diff/902877866 --DannyS712 (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Computer graphics
. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - Special:Diff/903614054 --DannyS712 (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:March 1–3, 2018 nor'easter
It has been a solid week since the last meaningful input to the discussion, and at this point, it is quite clear that there is no consensus for supporting the proposed page moves (not to mention that the proposed titles are blatant violations of English grammar rules for simple titles). I find it unlikely that the discussion will generate any more valid input; it seems that the discussion has reached a point where mudslinging is becoming more likely. Requesting an uninvolved admin to close this discussion.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You mind closing this one? Thanks.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Closed by Steel1943  (talk) at 18:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth ,  ed.  put'r there  18:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:EastEnders
Discussion stalled since 6 26 May 2019‎. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. --Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Either a Relist or a No Consensus is probably in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done by xaosflux. Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 7
already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Closed by Primefac (talk) at 02:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC).  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  11:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 10
already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Iran
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iran? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:John R. Bolton
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John R. Bolton? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/White Americans
Nominator failed to list this at Articles for deletion, so I suspect it might not get closed except by request. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done by The Earwig. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Shenzhen Bay Port
No one really participated in the merge discussion. Someone had made off-topic comment, but the user, had been blocked for socking. Could an uninvolved editor please close this merge discussion. Matthew hk (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/May
Would an uninvolved editor please close these proposals? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done by other editors. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Minute Maid Park
Could an uninvolved admin please review this discussion for closure? Merging Tal's Hill into Minute Maid Park has been proposed twice now in the past 8 months, and both times only one editor has opposed the merger (the same editor both times). The second discussion was listed on WikiProject Houston and WikiProject Baseball to attract more interest, and has now been open for 14 days. 73.32.38.72 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Boeing
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion for closure? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 151
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 151? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Hawkeye (comics)
—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * done Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   05:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:George Washington
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:George Washington? Thanks. Factotem (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   10:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

List inclusion criteria for List of most visited art museums
Would an uninvolved and experienced editor please assess the consensus at List inclusion criteria for List of most visited art museums? The discussion is expanded in other sections before and after the section for the formal RfC, and the closing editor is encouraged to evaluate these additional relevant discussions. Thank you. Qono (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kensal Green
Would an uninvolved closer please assess the merge consensus here. There are also some relevant comments at Talk:Kenmont Primary School.Klbrain (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Masculism sidebar
—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Closed by Dicklyon (talk) at 06:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC).  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  18:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
No new editors have joined the discussion in several days Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * done. Closed by ~Swarm~  at 06:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)  Paine Ellsworth ,  ed.  put'r there  18:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 21:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Please keep in mind the active arbitration case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   09:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done Special:Diff/905447591. -- The SandDoctor Talk 05:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article? Thank you! --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * done by Special:Diff/905147717. -- The SandDoctor  Talk 05:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability
This subject has proved controversial, and with a high editor participation a neutral, experienced editor is required to assess and provide the close. It would be preferable if it was closed by someone not connected with the trains wikiproject or a regular trains editor as that could be perceived as non-neutral. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Special:Diff/905436944 -- The SandDoctor  Talk 05:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested moves
Requested moves currently has a backlog that goes back about three weeks. Assistance to reduce the amount of entries in the backlog is appreciated. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Resolved mark. No longer backlogged. —  Newslinger  talk   23:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:London Gazette/Archive 1
Would an uninvolved experienced template editor please assess the consensus at Template talk:London Gazette/Archive 1? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   01:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Schoharie limousine crash
Would an experienced editor please assess consensus here? Thank you! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Dts
Would an uninvolved experienced editor with the page mover and template editor permissions please assess the consensus at Template talk:Dts? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   01:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done.  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  21:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 5
already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * relisted again to Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 25 --DannyS712 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done by in Special:Diff/905572599 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 6
already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * relisted again to Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 26 --DannyS712 (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done by in Special:Diff/905714407 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 28
These transclude to an article in is on the main page right now. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done I just did this myself. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Presidency of Donald Trump? Thank you!--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Please close Ladsgroupoverleg 23:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Tulsi Gabbard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Another problematic close (Cf. noticeboard record) from .   Zzuzz removed Red Slash's page mover rights recently.  Could benefit from more neutral eyes than mine. Best, 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 21:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - any disagreement with the close should be taken up with the closer or otherwise challenged per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. --DannyS712 (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66
Would an uninvolved user please close this discussion? I know it's an old discussion, but a user that nothing valid came from it and  against any edit based on that discussion. Therefore I believe it would be immensely helpful if this discussion were properly closed and thus consensus assessed, so that we know what is the best step to take next (e.g. more discussion).Tvx1 10:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Bhutan FA.png was removed from Bhutan Football Federation by an administrator per Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55. It has been re-added to the article on numerous occasions since that close and removed each time (not only by me) for reasons based on that discussion or for other WP:NFCCP reasons. Recently some IPs have been re-adding the file and it has continued to be removed (again not by only me). It was last removed by an administrator (who also participated in the WT:NFCC discussion you asking to be closed) when he protected the page. At present, the NFCR discussion (a community noticeboard) which led to the file being removed still is, in my opinion, in effect and the use of the file is still considered to be a clear NFCCP violation; so, removing it isn't edit warring (see WP:3RRNO); moreover, the WT:NFCC discussion you're referencing was a broader discussion related to the application of the WP:NFCC to this type of non-free use, not a discussion of any one particular file's non-free use. There have been similar discussions about this particular part of the NFCC over the years as well, and these can also be found in the WT:NFCC archives. in addition, I never insisted that nothing valid came from the WT:NFCC discussion at all so you got that wrong too just you got it wrong when you accused me of being POINTY (WP:POINT is not being POINTY); there was some progress made in moving towards a consensus in the latest discussion, but where we disagree is that I don't think a formal consensus was established to go back and undo not only the NFCR for this particular file but also the many other files which have been discussed at NFCR and FFD over the years and closed by different administrators basically the same way and have been continued to be closed the same way even after the discussion you're asking to be closed.I also don't get why you've waited three years to suddenly start claiming this is now the consensus and why you've decided that this particular file was the focus of that consensus. As I previously posted, if you feel the NFCR for this particular file should be re-considered, the you should follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; on the other hand, if you want to re-open the above-mentioned archived discussion or start an RFC, then you can do that at WT:NFCC. The Non-free reviewed template at the top of File:Bhutan FA.png clearly suggests that further discussion may be needed at FFD for other uses of the file, but you've not tried to seek out a consensus or at least a reaffirmation of what you perceive to be a consensus via FFD. FFD is a community noticeboard and a new consensus established there would most likely be enough to supersede the older NFCR one. If you want to do that, then it would at least be courteous to give the admin who closed the NFCR discussion first a heads up and see what they have to say, which is also something you've not tried doing. Finally, one thing about this matter though is that this involves a change in the way a pretty major Wikipedia policy has been interpreted and applied to quite a number of files over the years by various administrators; so, I think it would be best for any new consensus to be something established via a well participated and publicized RFC because it will likely affect the way lots of non-free files (not only soccer team logos) can be used in lots of articles. The WT:NFCC discussion being referenced here is possibly something good to build upon, but I think a much stronger consensus should be established for something like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for discussion. Only for posting short requests for closure. A lengthy post like yours is not appropriate here. You requested to follow the proper procedures, so I thought I'd start with having the contested discussion properly closed by an uninvolved person to see where we're at. We can then move on from that. There is no point in keeping on hammering on WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. You know full well that they won't review a five-year-old close. Is not even the point of contention. I'm also amused on how quickly you reacted to my request here. Kind a looks like following my edits around. Let's just not discuss here at a board that is not meant for discussion.Tvx1 21:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your original post here made a number of accusations against me; so, I responded. Perhaps it was a bit too much of a WP:WALLOFTEXT, but I responded. Now you're accusing me of hounding you for responding to these accusations when you yourself could've elected to discuss them at a more appropriate forum. Two administrators have now reverted you, once at the concerned article and once at the concerned file's page. You think it's pointless to ask you to discuss things with the administrator who closed a relevant discussion because it was from five years ago, but there's no expiration date on a particular close or CLOSECHALLENGE and it can be changed. At the same time, you don't think it's pointless to ask for an "uninvolved editor" to go back and close a discussion which was archived almost three years ago, when it clearly states at the top of the archived page: "This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page." As I already posted a number of times, you can re-start the more general discussion about this type of non-free use at WT:NFCC. Finally, if you or someone else wants to collapse my replies here as being "off topic", feel free to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not a venue for discussion. The "do not edit" banner on the archive relates to continuing discussion there. Closing a discussion is a different matter. Keeping closed discussions and thus consensi for future is why these archives mainly exist in the first place. Thus there is nothing wrong requesting a proper close, mainly because there is a clear dispute about the outcome of this discussion. Now let's just wait for this request to be actioned.Tvx1 09:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that "Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page" kinda means exactly what it says. It doesn't mean someone goes in and "closes" an almost three-year old discussion thread, especially without any input from those involved. If the consensus is/was a clear as you're claiming, it would've almost be certainly applied to not just one file, but rather all files which were removed for the reasons given in that WT:NFCC discussion. It's also unlikely that an administrator, one who participated in the discussion, would've reverted you here and another administrator, who is experienced in non-free files and closes lots of FFD discussions, would've reverted you here. Both of these administrators saw your edit summaries linking to the WT:NFCC discussion and yet still reverted your edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You want to collapse the above then fine; however, please strike the false accusations (a user that nothing valid came from it and against any edit based on that discussion.) that you made against me in your original request then. This is certainly not the right place discuss such things or make such accusations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nominator has been indeffed by . Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And now he's unblocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't know how that would have affected anything. The request still stands.Tvx1 11:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not done This is a 3-year old discussion, with no real proposal to amend the relevant policies (WP:NFC/WP:NFCC). There's nothing wrong with suggesting changes, but this should be accomplished via a formal, advertised WP:RFC -  F ASTILY   22:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Order of the Arrow
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Order of the Arrow? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done Special:Diff/907158901 -- The SandDoctor Talk 22:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Mixed bag of group portals
Please will an admin assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This may be a train wreck. The closer may need to decide whether to close each of the nominations separately or to send this back to square one.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done by - Special:Diff/906942563 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at SNC-Lavalin affair? Thank you!--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to closer - This is a continuation of a previous RfC which was closed by  with comments.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I will note, as the closer of the last RfC, that I agree with Daryl that this RfC short circuited what appeared to be an a move toward consensus and is just as likely to extend the debate as it is to find consensus and thus end the dispute. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clearer, we're asking for this to be speedy closed and a better RfC to be started, possibly after more discussion. Safrolic (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've opened a new RfC with all of the options (including the one being considered in this RfC). Can an experienced editor please close this one? – Anne drew  18:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note - whom opened this RfC has removed the template and closed it.  A formal closure from an uninvolved editor may no longer be required.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * has also archived the RfC discussion. So again a formal close from an uninvolved editor may be unnecessary.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow! I have never seen a move like this in my time at Wikipedia. Congratulations. This was an honest move to look at a third option after an RfC did not find consensus for use of either of two contested words. Barkeeper, you suggested three options. I was requesting comment for an option that has been ignored.
 * It is within the right of any editor to request for comment. If others don't like it they can "vote" that way. But removing a right to ask for comment on a legitimate option in a controversial discussion is inappropriate as is the bad faith assumption. And I never particularly cared about the outcome of this discussion however wrong I think it is; I do care about control and ownership and I don't like personal attacks however indirect. Littleolive oil (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying you aren't allowed to ask for comment on a legitimate option in a controversial discussion. But when we're supposed to avoid creating multiple simultaneous RfCs on significantly overlapping topics, it's not appropriate to build an RfC which specifically excludes the two options which are most popular. This has the effect of derailing discussion for the period the RfC is open- by default, a month. What's more, it's an RfC on whether your preference is acceptable, in which you've placed your preference as a 'stopgap', on an article we just had an arbitration case regarding edit-warring in. This means you're effectively asking for the right to make us wait a month with your preference as the status quo, which we can't change, before we can open up an actually productive RfC, when every other voter so far has opposed you. I believe you made this RfC in good faith, but it's time now to withdraw it and create one with all the other options on the table too. Safrolic (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Before an RfC is issued, there must be at least a consensus among the involved editors as to what to ask in the RfC. This particular RfC, close on the heels of the earlier one, was certainly premature. Close it please! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No that's not true, actually Kautilya3. There does not need to be consensus among editors to hold an RfC. If it were you'd have RfCs about whether to have an RfC. An RfC is SO VERY simply a request for outside input. And Safrolic Please stop making things up. This was not my first preference as you should well know since I supported controversy to your scandal and discussed it multiple times. RfCS DO OFTEN OVERLAP in terms of content on contentious articles. And this RfCs was not simultaneous with any other RfC. And do you hear me when I say this RfC does not stop or slow down discussion on other solutions. RfCs can occur concurrently with discussion. Then if and when consensus is reached in either place edits can be made. There is something wrong here. I don't like having stories told about me that aren't true. And I don't like false information about what is going on in an article. You or anyone else can close down this RfC; I'm not attached to it nor was I attached to the edits I made. I am attached to truth. That's why I've removed this article from my watch list. I will not continue to edit where I am falsely represented or reports on article interactions are misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Done – closed by Safrolic (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2019

Talk:Juul
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Juul? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done - Discussion now closed. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes!  16:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:William Happer
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:William Happer? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, discussion closed. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes!  17:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Manny Pacquiao
Could an uninvolved editor please close this discussion regarding the material removed in ?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bizarre this was still open - really after 2 years I'd normally just acknowledge the discussion naturally died out, nevertheless done. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes!  17:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Richat Structure
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Richat Structure? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done Special:Diff/908123438 -- The SandDoctor Talk 16:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done Special:Diff/908120047. -- The SandDoctor Talk 15:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Audi Q3
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Audi Q3? Thanks, --Vauxford (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Domestic violence
Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Infobox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done Enterprisey (talk!) 03:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jimmy Dore
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jimmy Dore? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Korea
Discussion stalled since 5 May 2019‎. Please will an uninvolved closer assess the consensus here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion has resumed. Needs either a close or a formal Relist and attention to the need for a close in one more week.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * already done This discussion was closed by yesterday. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Vermont
Discussion ended on 4 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion was closed yesterday. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wyoming
Discussion ended on 4 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion was closed yesterday. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Colorado
Discussion (some of which was uncivil) ended on 8 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done Was done, template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:New Mexico
Discussion ended on 4 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done Was done, template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Papua New Guinea
Discussion ended on 9 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done Was done, template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Iowa
Discussion ended on 11 July. Will an administrator please assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done Was done, template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church
Discussion is continuing (and is rather animated). A Relist may be better than a close, but will an administrator please assess the consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done Was done, template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biochemistry
Discussion is continuing, and is sometimes uncivil. Either a Relist or a close is in order. Will an administrator please assess the consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done Was done, template needed for archiving --DannyS712 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
Arguably the consensus is clear enough for it to not require closure by a third-party but given that the topic has been discussed previously (see links in opening statement) without finality being reached, it would be good to have formal closure. Abecedare (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by . Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Polyphenol
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Polyphenol? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Marriage
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Marriage? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done — JFG talk 09:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Recusancy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Recusancy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of the verified oldest people
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of the verified oldest people? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Guardian
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Guardian? Endymion.12 (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done this has been closed now, by . &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page
It has been over seven days, and though the consensus seems clear, I am concerned about this comment by that suggests the consensus might be ignored, especially given the sensitivity of the topic. Requesting formal closure and addressing of that question by an uninvolved admin. (Also pinging, the RfC initiator, and , who created the PoTD template under discussion.) Funcrunch (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RfCs are normally publicised for thirty days, this one is still attracting comment. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Already done by - See Talk:Main Page/Archive 194 --DannyS712 (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of concentration and internment camps
Would an experienced, uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of concentration and internment camps? Thank you. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done Sam Walton (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Chuck Tingle
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chuck Tingle? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

done — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ivanka Trump

 * This appears snow but a formal close would be helpful. -- Green  C  13:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

==== Talk:2018–19 United States federal government shutdown ==== Could an experienced editor review this article? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin/Archive 20
Could an experienced editor review Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Christianity in the 1st century
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

====Talk:Political spectrum RfC: Should the article include a specific representation of the "traditional left-right spectrum"==== Please take a look and close this RFC on a political spectrum diagram. It looks like an easy no and the last post in the discussion was July 31. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. El_C 02:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Neolithic Subpluvial
A RfC on Talk:Neolithic Subpluvial has just expired. It seems like a consensus for merge or redirect to me but as I supported the motion and filed the RfC I'd like to ask someone else to formally close it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 31
open since May 21, no new comments since June 1 &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Relisted - there was a flurry of new comments after this notice appeared, as well as a companion list created and nominated for deletion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done by MER-C. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kendrick Lamar discography
Please review Talk:Kendrick Lamar discography --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, why does an almost a year old discussion require a formal close? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Axios (website)
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Axios (website)? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   05:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * close Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally
Could an experienced editor please assess and formslly close this discussion? It has been raised on multiple talk pages and wound up at DRN, where an admin negotiated an RfC. The 30 day period for an RfC has expired (the discussion naturally died out two weeks beforehand), but an editors are interpreting the discussion differently. The RfC really needs a third party to summarise it, please. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * comment IMO this discussion is not finished. Yes, there was a 30day period of silence, but it continues now. So I'd say don't close it yet. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: the discussion had run its course and naturally died out after two weeks. You only objected when I moved to implement changes to articles based on the RfC discussion. By your own admission (in the RfC itself no less), you had forgotten about the discussion, so you cannot claim it is ongoing. To do so makes it look like you are stalling to prevent the consensus from being reached, especially given the way you have misrepresented the discussion (by claiming no support for a proposal when at least three editors had supported it) and have tried to draw on the opinions of editors from old discussions outside the RfC to support your position. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion is still ongoing with the latest comment made earlier today. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; could I please ask that the RfC be closed with the provision for a new one to be opened? There have been some complaints that the RfC was "not done properly" and some recent comments appear to be trying to subvert the RfC process. In particular, there is a claim that a second consensus is needed: one to agree to a new table format and one to agree that the new format is needed. This appears to be moving the goalposts as theoretically editors could agree to a new format, but if they do not specifically state that they think the new format is needed, then those opposed to change could claim that there is no consensus at all and try to block the change even if they are in an absolute minority. The whole discussion has become a mess, with those opposed to change redirecting the conversation to the RfC process rather than discuss the RfC content as a way of dragging the conversation out and forcing a WP:NOCONSENSUS. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Done Lurking shadow (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 3
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 3? Thank you. Oska (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can an administrator close this RFC? It has been going for a month. Thank you. GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Richard B. Spencer
Would an administrator assess the consensus at Talk:Richard B. Spencer? THE DIAZ userpage • talk • contribs 22:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, Tvx1 11:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Frankfurt School
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frankfurt School? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, Tvx1 12:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Lady Louise Windsor
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lady Louise Windsor? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, Tvx1 12:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Proposed United States purchase of Greenland
Would an experienced editor consider this for a WP:SNOW close? I'm normally reticent to request an AfD be closed prior to running a full, seven days, however, in this case it's holding up a DYK nomination which can't proceed while this is open. Chetsford (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Andrew Davidson. Cunard (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
Could an experienced editor please review the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--GRuban (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
Would an administrator evaluate the consensus in the discussion linked above? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability
This subject has proved controversial, and with a high editor participation a neutral, experienced editor is required to assess and provide the close. It would be preferable if it was closed by someone not connected with the trains wikiproject or a regular trains editor as that could be perceived as non-neutral. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, finally. Was an extensive read. Note: I'm not vehemently opposed if a sysop reads my close and wants to close it themselves, but this one's been inactive for more than a month, and it seems no one else was coming along to do so. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes!  07:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Post-classical history
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Post-classical history? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done  Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. TompaDompa (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * done  Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 21:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Would an uninvolved and experienced editor kindly assess the consensus? — JFG talk 21:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --Brustopher (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:5G
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:5G? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done -- Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fabiana Rosales
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fabiana Rosales? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * signed,Rosguill talk 21:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'd like a second opinion on the conclusions that I came to while I attempting to close this discussion, which I have posted below. I'm putting it inside a collapse template in case anyone wants to take a fresh look at the RfC before reading my rationale. signed,Rosguill talk 23:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I read through the discussion, and support your conclusion. Options A and B were both less popular numerically, and also seemed to have policy issues: e.g. coatracking and not being NPOV. That realistically only left options C and D. Option D was added an entire month after the discussion was started however, which meant that earlier participants may not have seen option D. Despite being added a month late, D still tied with C for support. I think that its fair to say there is weak consensus for D. I think your reasoning for vote overlap was clever (I didn't even think of that the first time I read the RfC!), and will reinforce the legitimacy of the close. I question leaving room for anyone to re-open the RfC as possibly leading to disruption, but agree that it should be easy enough to reopen given the weak consensus. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and the words of support. This is now Done. signed,Rosguill talk 00:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Extremely clear consensus that statement was both neutral and factual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 20:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done -The Gnome (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Catahoula bulldog
Need an admin to review and close. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 15:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 15:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests/Archive 2
Please close this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Merger Proposal: List of cryptids
I wasn't going to put this up for a formal close, but it was asked for back in June 2019 and now a new user has added to the survey, 7 months after it was initiated. Please close this. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done <em style="font-family:Arial;color:#6600CC">N.J.A.  &#124; talk  01:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 72
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 72? Thank you. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This is huge topic affecting literally all of Wikipedia, and I think more time is needed. I've been a Wikipedia editor a dozen years, and I've only just run across this RfC. There's no deadline, and I'm not sure what it would hurt to let it run longer to give more editors a chance to weigh in on something so momentous. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it's been close to an additional month, I'll take a look at this and the related PMC discussion below in a few days if no one else beats me to it. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes!  16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this still on your radar? Thanks, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 00:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, honestly I thought someone else would do it. Hasn't happened. I've got an exam Friday, so I'll close this Saturday if it's still open by then. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 05:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, finally. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 15:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

DRV backlog
Could somebody take a look at Deletion review/Log/2019 August 12. There's a number of discussions there which are overdue to be closed, but involved so many of the DRV regulars, it looks like there's nobody left that's uninvolved to close them. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's only one outstanding, Deletion review/Log/2019 August 12. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That discussion was closeby * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  22:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2019 June
Uninvolved admin needed for this one.  Calidum   05:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * still awaiting closure.  Calidum   20:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done, thanks. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 15:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2019 June
Please close.  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  15:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Thanks, Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 15:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2019 July
Please close.  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  06:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 15:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Julian Assange
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian Assange? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  03:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done – bradv  🍁  04:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fascism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done – bradv  🍁  02:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC on linking title to PMC
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at RfC on linking title to PMC. Thank you. Boghog (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Closed. – bradv  🍁  02:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Bradv. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Australia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Australia? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I would be happy to close this as part of a committee if there are two others who are of a similar mind. Given how extensive the discussion is, with 33 discernible opinions lodged, I think a committee close would be most appropriate as a confidence-building measure for those dissatisfied with the outcome. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to co-close this with you. DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * DannyS712 sorry for my delayed response. That sounds great. How would you like to proceed? Do you maybe want to sandbox a draft closing statement I can then give you my thoughts, or we could do it the other way around? Whatever is easiest for you. Chetsford (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * well, I say we give it a few days for a third volunteer, if that is okay with you --DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! Chetsford (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Howdy hello! If you folks would still like a third editor for a closing committee, I would be willing to join. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's do it! Does someone want to sandbox a draft close and then the other two can weigh-in and discuss? Chetsford (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I need to read it first, I've skimmed it once, but want to read it twice through before I say anything about it. Sure is a long one too! Edit: I'll let y'all know when I've read it. I'm game to draft a close, although it may take a few days considering the scale of it all. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've started reading it, but its long and I want to make sure I don't spend all of my time on it, so it'll be a few days. I should have a lot of time on my hands on Sunday, so at that point I can take a look at any close that has been drafted or start one. Maybe we should have this discussion elsewhere though? --DannyS712 (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:CaptainEek/Sandbox_2:_Electric_Boogaloo That's where I've started collecting my thoughts on the RfC, it would also be a good page to have discussion. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

==== Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram==== I opened an RFC on July 6 on whether or not certain resigning administrators/crats should be considered under a cloud. Nobody has commented in a week and the bot archived it without closure. I am requesting closure on this. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You opened it on 7 July, not July 6, as evidenced by . Thirty days isn't up yet (it's still got the at the top), nor is it archived. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Correction: it WAS archived after a week of no changes by the bot, but I undid the archive to allow proper closure. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done - was archived to Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation%27s ban of Fram/Archive 4 and closed by 2 weeks ago --DannyS712 (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Wuerl
Would an uninvolved eitor please assess the consensus on this RfC, taking into account the resolution that I proposed beneath? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Display name 99 - see --DannyS712 (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Electric smoking system and Talk:Electric smoking system
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --GRuban (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Electric smoking system
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 14
Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done by MBisanz --DannyS712 (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 14
Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done by MBisanz --DannyS712 (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 14
Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done by MBisanz --DannyS712 (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done Sam Walton (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

already done <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 21:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Electric smoking system
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

already done <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 21:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Iffy★Chat -- 21:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Calling on an uninvolved and experienced editor to assess consensus at Talk:Donald Trump. Thanks in advance. — JFG talk 11:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Harassment
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , another user is in the process of closing this.Tvx1 12:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done by --DannyS712 (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:RT (TV network)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:RT (TV network)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done by . —  Newslinger  talk   06:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * not done. I'm declining to close this RfC. The RfC was explicitly created for the purpose of soliciting "outside opinion" from uninvolved editors, and the RfC statement was open-ended ("Feel free to come up with a different idea"). Unfortunately, there was relatively low participation and no consensus, despite having been relisted twice. It would be more beneficial to allow the discussion to continue at its own pace than to close it in its current state. —  Newslinger  talk   16:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Electric smoking system
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   15:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Jackson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Jackson? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   16:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
Close it, please. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done by . —  Newslinger  talk   16:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Electric smoking system
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? This RfC should be allowed to run its course. Thanks, <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   16:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan Omar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ilhan Omar? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   11:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Alternative_outlets
The discussion is older than 10 August, so it should be closed. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done --Trialpears (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Electric smoking system and Talk:Electric smoking system
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   22:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   22:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Indigenous intellectual property
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Indigenous intellectual property? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   23:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Electric smoking system
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   23:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22
Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Discussion was closed by User:Tavix 2 days ago. Invalid OS (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:African Americans
Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   11:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Shapiro
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ben Shapiro? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   10:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Stanley Kubrick
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Stanley Kubrick An admin would be ideal, as the issue has been hotly debated for several years. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC).
 * Well as I said I would close some discussions I otherwise wouldn't during my RfA I'll mark this as . As I will not post a final decision for a couple days (I like to read complicated discussions like this at least twice over a couple days before closing) if another editor wishes to join me for a joint close I would welcome that (but ping me here or leave a message on my talk page). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, that's great, thank you. Could you please put a note that you're doing it somewhere visible on Talk:Stanley Kubrick as well? (I've got a note currently at the very bottom of the page, which might be a good place for it.) I'm not sure all potential closers look here at this list, and it would be annoying, to put it mildly, if several people start working on closing. Inviting a joint close is fine, of course, but I mean it would be a waste of time if several people were to work concurrently on individual closes, without knowing about each other. As you say, it's likely to take some time to assess the discussion. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC).
 * , I put a note at the top of the RfC. I love your optimism that some other idiot eager beaver would be so excited to wade into an infobox dispute that we could have conflicting closes :) . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, surely it happens. I'm picturing jostling closers in a three- or four-way edit conflict at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. :-) Bishonen &#124; talk 16:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC).
 * Some more attention is needed here, unfortunately. We have an involved participant,, modifying the closing admin's comments. Pinging and  -- Laser brain   (talk)  19:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now formally done this close. Given that my attempt to close the discussion, a standard practice while a complicated close is underway, was reverted I remain unsurprised that I did not have to beat off other potential closers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:International_reactions_to_the_2019_Hong_Kong_protests
Please review the following. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * already done by --DannyS712 (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bill Shorten
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Bill Shorten? Thank you!--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC) done Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Done Cinderella157 (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music
There appears to be a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. But since one editor in particular was strongly opposed, would an uninvolved editor please assess it? Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Constantinople
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Constantinople? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 20
Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 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 10:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 27
Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed a few hours ago by . <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 10:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 30
Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done Again by Darkwind. <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 10:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 13
Most WP:TfD regulars have participated, so few closers available. czar 19:06, 14 September 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 11:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 6
Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 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 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 27
Would an experienced administrator and/or discussion closer please close this discussion? Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed by Darkwind a few hours ago. <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 11:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 27
Would an experienced administrator and/or discussion closer please close this discussion? Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed a few hours ago. <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 11:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:911
Seems to have run its course, but not listed where administrators can see to close. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed 2 weeks ago. <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 10:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Virginia Beach shooting
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess this RfC? There have been no fresh !votes for quite some time. Thanks. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
Would an uninvolved eitor please assess the consensus on this RfC on the wording of a section of the article., even that section of the article had been moved to sub-article. Matthew hk (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * this was closed by another ed.  DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion appears to still to be open. —  Newslinger  talk   06:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please review Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. This thread seems to have been deleted from this page without reason. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It . There were three reasons: one, you posted it in the wrong section; two, it had already been requested by somebody else - who had posted their request in the proper section; third, duplicate requests waste peoples time. For those reasons, I shall shortly be moving this request also. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment - This discussion is still open. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * done. Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion and Talk:Abortion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abortion and Talk:Abortion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Both RFC closes are Done. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 03:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Brecon and Radnorshire recall petition
A merge request on the borderline of consensus which involved two pairs of articles. A zealous editor went ahead and merged one pair but not the other, leading to an inconstancy. The second pair either needs to be merged or the first merge should be undone. --LukeSurlt c 11:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done --Trialpears (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ariane 5
The discussion is older than 10 August, so it should be closed. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kodomo no Jikan
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kodomo no Jikan? My third relist of the RfC reverted. A close would be useful since as noted in the RfC this has been discussed multiple times in the past. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:33, 23 September 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 09:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   19:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 04:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 6
Would an experienced administrator please close this discussion? Most WP:RFD regulars, including administrators, have already participated in this discussion, leaving few options for potential closers. Steel1943 (talk) 14:07, 20 September 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 08:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I second this request and came here to make it. I would close it, except that I've put a moratorium on doing so for myself (and also I'm involved). Due to the potential amount of disruption a decision to add a disclaimer may have, I think an admin (at the least) should be the one to make the closure. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   02:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've read through the discussion. I'll close it soon, may take some time. I would welcome if another person wanted to join and make this a two person close. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 04:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This one is Done . Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 11:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Great Famine of 1876–1878
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * RfC failed to attract enough community attention for a formal assessment of consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In which case, not done. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What does this outcome mean?GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * that's one for you. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , it means that not enough editors participated to form a binding consensus but it seems like you and agree on the core idea that it needs inclusion but still need to come to an agreement as the the specifics of how to include. What seems like is happening for now is that the current wording, which is basically what you proposed at the RfC is staying. At some point Fowler has indicated they're going to propose an alternative version with more detail. Hopefully you two can come to an agreement then. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Suicide methods
Would an experienced, uninvolved editor - preferably an administrator - please assess the consensus here? This has been outstanding for over a month and discussion has pretty much entirely died down. Gimubrc (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done this one too. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 17:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Here, There & Everywhere (company)
Seeking an experienced and uninvolved editor to assess the consensus at Talk:Here, There & Everywhere (company) Thank you. :) --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Marked Done, but technically Not done - this one has been re-listed a few days ago. FWIW, I would have relisted too as there's insufficient discussion at this stage. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 11:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Catalan independence movement
Withdrawn by nominator; no support !votes. Scolaire (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * close by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask an experienced admin take care of it. -- M h hossein   talk 05:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done -- slakr \ talk / 09:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Hafte Tir bombing
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hafte Tir bombing? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done -- slakr \ talk / 09:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
Near-unanimous result, so an easy close. It's a guideline wording change, so best closed by an admin. —&thinsp;AReaderOutThataway&thinsp;t/c 15:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done -- slakr \ talk / 09:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Seeking an experienced and uninvolved editor to assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Thanks in advance! — JFG talk 23:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Participants have agreed on an outcome. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:U.S. Route 131
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:U.S. Route 131? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Wug·a·po·des​ 00:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Berlin
Would an uninvolved editor please close this discussion? It is now moot, since the only "keep" !voter was the creator, who has now moved the portal to project space. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done. This was a bit of an unusual circumstance and so if I set the options wrong on XfD closer please someone let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 153
Would an experienced uninvolved editor, preferably an administrator, please assess the consensus at this CENT-advertised RfC on the status of the portal guideline? Wug·a·po·des​ 03:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   22:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:EOKA
There is a RfC at this section. Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Arizona Hotshots season
Could someone close this discussion if there is a clear consensus? If the decision is made to merge the articles I can do so myself. Thanks!  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --Trialpears (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 267
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 267? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   03:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that this is a not done. The discussion didn't necessarily need a formal close and it appears that the language at issue has been removed from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Do you still think it needs a close as I'm not seeing one as helpful here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ronald Reagan
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronald Reagan? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jack Hadley
The "Requested move 19 September 2019" has not attracted much interest, but can use a closure since it is in the way of a DYK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * not done for now; I have relisted the RM to try and get some more discussion. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yay. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:ACP Magazines
Seeking an experienced and uninvolved editor to assess the consensus at Talk:ACP Magazines Thank you. :) --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * not done for now; I have relisted the RM to try and get some more discussion. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a more nuanced discussion than a standard RfC, I don't see any formal supports and opposes to compare. I'm marking it done here, but don't see a need for a formal closure there. If someone disagrees, please ping me and I can come back to it.--GRuban (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In which case, not done. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , the link I added was incorrect. It should be Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10 (where there are formal supports), not Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10 (where there are no formal supports). Let me know if this changes your opinion on whether it should be closed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you, that makes a difference, will look.--GRuban (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, really this time. --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bengal famine of 1943
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , It looks like this discussion was archived without a formal close. At a glance, it seems like it's likely no consensus, in which case it wouldn't really benefit from a formal close (and also it doesn't look like anyone's complained about the lack of action). Should we reinstate the discussion to allow for a formal close, or just leave it be? signed,Rosguill talk 22:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , an RfC participant asked here why the RfC has not been closed with these comments: "There was recently an RfC here. It seems to not so much have been closed by a human as to have been disappeared by bots.[1][2] Surely we should have a close" and "Now I'm really confused. You appear to have voted in the RfC.[3] Nothing wrong with that, but an RfC should be closed by an uninvolved user. Furthermore, I don't see any closing commit with a summary of the consensus as one usually sees." Let me know if this changes your opinion on whether it should be closed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks, I think in that case getting an actual close is warranted. signed,Rosguill talk 01:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --GRuban (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 El Paso shooting
Would an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. See also the similar discussion at Talk:2019 Dayton shooting. TompaDompa (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please review Talk:2019 El Paso shooting. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of terrorist incidents
If nobody closes this, the terrorists win. Thanks in advance! – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 02:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

done Dionysodorus (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Greek language
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Greek language? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

done Dionysodorus (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Same-sex marriage
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Same-sex marriage? Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC) done Dionysodorus (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kennedy Stewart (Canadian politician)
Would an uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kennedy Stewart (Canadian politician)? Thanks --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

done Dionysodorus (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 16
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Already done by - see Special:Diff/919298220. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 12
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 12? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   17:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This one is now done Barkeep49 (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair
When the time comes, would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair? Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC) This RfC is ready to be closed. Safrolic (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to closer - This RfC should be allowed to run its course. I have just posted it here now so there is some advance notice.  The topic of the RfC was originally discussed in this first RfC which was closed without consensus being reached.  For much of the time it was open, editing on this article had been before ArbCom.  Following that, a second RfC was opened and then closed early so other options could also be considered.  A straw poll had occurred at the same time.  This third RfC began to consider all options shortly thereafter.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--GRuban (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus on this RfC? Legobot keeps removing RfC ID, so was adviced to bring it here for closure. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

done Dionysodorus (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Dayton shooting
Would an uninvolved closer please assess the consensus here. See also the similar discussion at Talk:2019 El Paso shooting. TompaDompa (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Penny Rowson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Penny Rowson? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

done Dionysodorus (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Australian
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Australian? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

done Dionysodorus (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

done Dionysodorus (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Richard B. Spencer
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Richard B. Spencer? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

done Dionysodorus (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Duodecimal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Duodecimal? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

done Dionysodorus (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Tucker Carlson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Tucker Carlson? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

done Dionysodorus (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Gatestone Institute
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gatestone Institute? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Would an uninvolved experienced administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:Gatestone_Institute? Thank you. (JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC))
 * done --GRuban (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Israel Shamir
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israel Shamir? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

done Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault? This is slightly under the 30 day mark, but there's been no discussion for a week. Thanks! Nblund talk 16:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49 (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010
– Would an administrator assess this issue and take necessary action please. Ythlev (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Stale discussions are exactly the ones that need admin involvement according to this page. Is no action to be taken against disruptive editing? Ythlev (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No action required, this has been archived for months. Content disputes are not an issue for administrators. Should the issue still require administration attention due to conduct of your fellow users, then open a new thread on WP:ANI. <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  11:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please explain what the administrators' noticeboard is for if admins just ignore the issues on them. When a users violates WP policies and discussion does not resolve the issue, is it not the job of admins to assess the arguments and take necessary action? Otherwise the edit war would just continue. Ythlev (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are the issues still occurring? This is from over 4 months ago, so I believe if the same issues still occurring, a new thread would be better, particularly as it could provide context around additional things that have happened since 10 May when this thread was started. As you and  disagree I shall step away from this one. <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  08:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What suggests that I "disagree" with Ythlev? Please use diffs where appropriate. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You both disagreed with me. I didn’t say you disagreed with Ythlev. <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 22:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This entry has been sitting here since May, and it seems doubtful whether it is at all appropriate or necessary for an admin (or anyone else) to close it. I just delisted the discussion, but was reverted by Redrose64, on the quite reasonable grounds that it is inappropriate simply to delete a discussion on which users have commented. Should this just sit here until an admin eventually closes it, or would it be preferable to e.g. remove it to the archives manually in order to preserve the comment thread? Dionysodorus (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We have established procedures on this page, and thread removal is performed by in response to the presence of certain trigger templates, which are: ; ; ;  and . Any one of these will cause the thread that contains it to be archived.
 * If a given thread requires no further action, there are two things to be done: (i) mark the with yes, which will change the "(Initiated ... days ago on ...)" from red to black; (ii) add a signed comment that includes one of those trigger templates. As far as I can work out, my "disagreement" with  was  - simply, they used yes but didn't also use one of the templates that would trigger an archive. They go as a pair . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. Thank you for your help Redrose64: I am aware of the procedure, but I hadn't realised that the close or not done templates would suffice to trigger ClueBot III.
 * close Dionysodorus (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 4
Would an uninvolved experienced editor administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 4 Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   10:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC) One editor in the discussion specifically requested a closure by an administrator. —  Newslinger  talk   11:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Just an experienced editor, not an admin, despite request, so in theory, you can ask that this be redone, but WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO; in other words, consensus was so clear I find it hard to believe any one would close this any other way. --GRuban (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Central Europe
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Central Europe? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done feminist (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 18
already relisted once, discussion is still on-going. Frietjes (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Kudpung. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 22
already relisted once. Frietjes (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done by DeltaQuad.

Talk:Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)