Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 29

Wikipedia talk:Administrators
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Administrators? Thank you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by yesterday  Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 13:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Calvin Cheng
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Calvin Cheng? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Done. Mgasparin (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 18
already relisted 3 times, no new discussion since the last relist. Frietjes (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * done Mgasparin (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 19
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. (I just relisted this one yesterday, but I did not realize how old this discussion was until today [which is a bit of a silly oversight on my part, considering I've relisted this discussion multiple times.] Of course, per WP:RELIST, since the initial 7-day period has long-passed, if consensus can be assessed, the discussion can be closed at any time.) Steel1943  (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I went intending to close the discussion, but decided that I could better serve it through participating in it. Cheers! bd2412  T 23:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done Fish +Karate 11:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done--GRuban (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Noah Kraft
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Noah Kraft? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:NYC Pride March
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:NYC Pride March? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:African Americans
No comments for more than a week. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

done Mgasparin (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Dorsal column–medial lemniscus pathway
Would an uninvolved editor please review this merge proposal discussion? There is an analogous discussion in the immediately preceding section related to the Cuneate fasciculus. These anatomy discussions involve proposals to merge Cuneate fasciculus and Gracile fasciculus into Dorsal column–medial lemniscus pathway, with a counter-proposal to merge the fasciculi into their respective nuclei. Klbrain (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

done Mgasparin (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 33
This discussion was archived without closure a while ago. Please let me know if it is too late for closure on this. Thanks! Dathus •  Talk   Contribs  22:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Honestly, though, if there were a consensus to change that no one implemented for a year and a half, that could have been a problem, since just inaction would have been an argument that change wasn't that necessary. --GRuban (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox military unit
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox military unit? Thanks, Ckfasdf (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * After just ten days, with discussion still ongoing? Not done -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination)
This AfD has been closed three times (once by me), with each close being voided for various reasons. The discussion is now coming up on six weeks. Somebody needs to put it out of its misery. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done Fish +Karate 10:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 22
Could an experienced editor close the currently oldest open XfD discussion. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done Fish +Karate 13:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Next United Kingdom general election
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Already done Was closed by on 13 October. Fish +Karate  08:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 08:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Alt-right
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alt-right? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Doing. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 03:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done by WBG --DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by . — JFG talk 01:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Abby Martin
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abby Martin? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done by S Marshall. Politrukki (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:TERF
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:TERF? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done by . ToThAc (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 3
Could an experienced and uninvolved editor please review this discussion. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary  (yak)  14:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done. ToThAc (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 13
Would an experienced editor close this very old CfD? --Trialpears (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 4
Would an experience editor please close this discussion? --Trialpears (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done by MER-C. ToThAc (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   00:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Politrukki (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Century
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Century? I closed the March 2019 RfC and will leave this RfC to another closer. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Already done by S Marshall. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 21:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 153
Would an uninvolved editor please asses the consensus at this Purposes of Portals (19 July 2019) RfC on the purposes of portals? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 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 10:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Will close this up by tomorrow. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 21:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 15:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests
Seeking an experienced and uninvolved editor to assess the consensus at Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Matthew hk (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Will close this by tomorrow. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 21:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 17:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Opinion polling for the next Italian general election
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Opinion polling for the next Italian general election? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No new input since 20 September 2019, the bot removed the RfC tag at 19:01, 29 September 2019‎ (UTC). Needs consensus assessment and subsequent closure by an uninvolved editor. Impru 20  talk 15:30, 12 October 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 14:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Transgender
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Transgender]? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done by . Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Democrat Party
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Democrat Party? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural Catholic
Could an uninvolved editor please review this merger proposal of Cultural Catholic and Cafeteria Catholicism. Klbrain (talk) 17:16, 22 October 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 14:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Right-wing populism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Right-wing populism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done by --DannyS712 (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (plurals)
This is my earnest request to an uninvolved editor to review this discussion! --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done. ToThAc (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bulgarian Empire
Could an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks! -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Northamerica1000 --DannyS712 (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Missouri
Could an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks! -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Killiondude. ToThAc (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2019 October 13
Could an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks! -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done bd2412  T 15:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Serbia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Serbia]? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done – comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli settlement
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus here please. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Closed by S Marshall on 20 October 2019. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Walmart Canada Bank#Removed Schedule II Banks of Canada category
Could an administrator, or a non-involved editor, please assess consensus and close the RfC at Walmart Canada Bank#Removed Schedule II Banks of Canada category? No one seems to have objected to my untagging that redirect article with the given category for my given rationale. Any comments have been just that - comments. --Doug Mehus (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal talk:Law
Please review and close the two merger proposals under this heading. Note that we have a volunteer to carry out the first merger, if it is determined that there is consensus to merge. Thank you. bd2412 T 00:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:21, 29 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)
 * ; keeping the others open for now due to insufficient discussion. ToThAc (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The remaining discussions don't need to be pinned, since they've already been open for comment for three months. —  Newslinger  talk   19:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is further action required here? If so, please remove the y; if not, please add one of these templates -, , , , - to your post in order to attract the attention of . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll mark this as already done. Thanks, . —  Newslinger  talk   21:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Apple Inc.
Would a non-involved administrator, or an experienced editor, assess the consensus and close this discussion? We're at nine (9) oppose/strong oppose, all with the same or similar reasons, several comments and replies, and no sign of consensus going in favour of the nomination. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not just let the other 2 days go and it'll be closed like any other RM.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're an administrator? I didn't know that. But what do you mean by "close like any other RM"? I didn't think RMs closed by themselves; someone had to find it, close it if they felt comfortable doing so and had the necessary permissions, or an involved person had to request closure here. --Doug Mehus (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just meaning wait until the 7 days have expired and it will fall into WP:RME (which many editors monitor) in which case an uninvlved user will close it (unless something changes) as not moved.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, wasn't aware of that WP:RME page. That makes sense. How come some the move discussions listed below are so old, then? That is, how come editors haven't caught these, determined consensus (if any, or if no objections, closed as no objection) until now? (Sidebar: When I read your username each time, I keep thinking you're a law firm. LOL)--Doug Mehus (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * because the 7 days hasn't elapsed yet, as it says at WP:RME "The 7-day listing period has elapsed". Most discussions that have a clear consensus are closed shortly after they reach the 7 days of listing.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks again, but think you misunderstood my question. I wonder why those move discussions had to get listed here? I see some were malformed or did not use a proper consensus-building RfC or RM process, so that's one reason. Is another reason that some page moves get missed at WP:RME? Doug Mehus (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be an administrator to give advice on this page. Indeed, you asked for "... or an experienced editor" - and Crouch, Swale is experienced. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for clarity, I wasn't suggesting wasn't an experienced editor; quite the contrary. I just didn't realize that editors could also reply to this page. I also see that editors can participate in WP:ANI discussions, providing comments, insight, citing policies, etc., so, really, are there any pages whereby only admins are preferred to reply? Doug Mehus (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done – I've closed it as not moved per unanimous opposition. Not a chance that one more day of debate would swing the outcome. — JFG talk 06:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was my thinking. I figured an editor following WP:RME would timely close this WP:RM, but seeing as it was strong, well-cited unanimous opposition, it seemed sort of like, why bother waiting? Possibly the easiest consensus determination ever. ;-)Doug Mehus (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 10? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done by User:S Marshall, showing creativity. --GRuban (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Woman suffrage parade of 1913
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus for moving page to "Woman suffrage procession (1913)" and not to the requested move title (or keeping as is) and please formally close the discussion at Talk:Woman suffrage parade of 1913. --Biotech46 (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Red   Slash  05:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC) –  P. I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  put'r there 09:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Massachusetts
Could an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done by --DannyS712 (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Montenegrin language
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Montenegrin language? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done Wug·a·po·des 05:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done feminist (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox military unit/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox military unit/Archive 1? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Close--- Coffee  and crumbs  12:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death/Archive 1? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions
Would an experienced editor asses the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Primefac - --DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of Solar System exploration
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thank you. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Close --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Australian rules football
Could an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Scottywong --DannyS712 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Basketball
Please could an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks! -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Scottywong --DannyS712 (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Spurs
Please review Articles for deletion/The Spurs. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Britishfinance. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hijiri88
Could an uninvolved administrator please take a look at this discussion and close it? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by Scottywong. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Steven  Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 13:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you still doing this? * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 00:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done Since it's been a month since a previous editor expressed interest in closing with no change, I've gone ahead and closed it with a rough consensus in favor of including the proposed text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:06, 7 November 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) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed with no consensus ...established for making the proposed edits. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:David Koch
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Koch? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed with no consensus to including the information in the lede. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_31
Could an uninvolved experienced editor close this discussion? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done. ToThAc (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:U.S. state
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:U.S. state? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed as a rough consensus to oppose including these territories in the article. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Stamets
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Stamets? I am not closing this RfC as some of the supports are qualified supports. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP with FRINGE issues, where there has been SOAP and COI problems. The RfC is a tad vague, but closure would help us move on. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Requesting help. The RfC is fuzzy and not in the formal process. Some closure would inform next steps.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  22:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed with a clear consensus that the lede should describe the article subject as a "mycologist". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump? Thanks, &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed with a rough consensus to change the text and a narrow consensus to use Option D. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus and close the discussions on the following proposals? There is the initial "Yet Another Proposal" which as gone stale, which was then broken up into 4 parts in the "Last Attempt" (1, 2, 3, 4), and the alternative proposal. Thanks. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Ymblanter --DannyS712 (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Requests_for_permissions/Page_mover
Any uninvloved admin may close this remaining request at Requests_for_permissions/Page_mover by me. Thanks. Störm  (talk)  06:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Primefac (talk) at 22:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC) –  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 00:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Could an administrator assess the ANI incident and determine whether it had been amicably resolved between the two involved editors,, and myself and action appropriately? Thanks. (Note: we seemed to have resolved things amicably, so am just seeking a determination that this was the case and for case closure.) --Doug Mehus (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Britishfinance --DannyS712 (talk) 20:07, 9 November 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) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 03:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you doing? --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done} After relative silence on the prior close attempts, I have closed with a rough consensus to oppose these qualifications as written. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Northwest Detention Center
Merger proposal awaiting closure czar  04:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

DoneN2e (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   07:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Redirect
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Redirect? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * already done by . —  Newslinger  talk   07:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lighthouses
Would an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion? Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Close by Scottywong <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 18:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Good_article_reassessment/Catch_21/1
Please review this reassessment. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Close Consensus to keep. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 18:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * already done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 7
Please relist or review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done –  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 05:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 World Rally Championship
Would an experienced editor or administrator please review this discussion? An older discussion on the subject exists and might need to be considered as well.Tvx1 11:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Will someone please assess this discussion? This request has been open for months.Tvx1 12:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done Mgasparin (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   09:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   08:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_9
It seems that all the active RfD closers have expressed an opinion in this discussion, so we need a fresh pair of eyes to come in and close the discussion. Deryck C. 12:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 *  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 00:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done by mazca  22:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC).  P. I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  put'r there 07:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023
Could significantly benefit from an official close and statement on IiKkEe's talk page about the close, given the seriousness of the thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * done.  starship  .paint  (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Siouxsie Sioux
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Siouxsie Sioux? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done.  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 11:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Microbial symbiosis and immunity
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Microbial symbiosis and immunity about closing and moving the article? Thanks, Phillipebrown (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * not done. RMs run a minimum of 7 days, and this one isn't old enough yet to close. Suggest we rely upon the RM system to close this request when the time comes.  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 22:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Seeking a formal closure by an uninvolved editor. I believe the consensus is quite clear but because this will codify a specific understanding regardin MFD and CSD:G13, I am seeking a formal closure so that editors substituting their judgement are met with consensus based rejection. Hasteur (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

done - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:21 Savage
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:21 Savage? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done Iffy★Chat -- 19:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev
This (and the following sections, Poll on how long a moratorium on Requests for Move should be and A sad end to the moratorium?) could do with a close. The discussion follows on from an already-closed RM. Would do it myself, but I think my involvement in the discussion would cause problems. Kahastok talk 19:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * already done last week. Iffy★Chat -- 19:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:International Brigades
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Brigades? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Effective altruism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Effective altruism? Thanks Xodarap00 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jeffrey Epstein
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   00:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)? Thank you. - MrX 🖋 18:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Noticed this while at VPP. . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And done Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Tim Pool
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tim Pool? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Dennis Bonnen
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dennis Bonnen? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Bea Miller
Please review Template talk:Bea Miller. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Sabine Weyand
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sabine Weyand? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Closed as moot due to the acceptance of the "newer" text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:White Croats
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White Croats? Thanks.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Closed as no consensus to make the proposed edits. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kosovo? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done, closed as no consensus. Invalid OS (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Propaganda
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Propaganda? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_22
Would an uninvolved editor please assess consensus in this ancient CfD discussion? Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done. ToThAc (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   01:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done. ToThAc (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_20
Would an uninvolved editor please assess consensus in this ancient CfD discussion? Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * already done by . ToThAc (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   13:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * already done by . —  Newslinger  talk   20:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Tabiti
Could someone please try to come to an assessment of whether there is a consensus to merge. Situation has not been made clearer by a few socks being struck, and edit-warring is going on. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:BMW M3
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:BMW M3? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done by El C. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Canadian federal election 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2019 Canadian federal election 1? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done by Brythones. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bitcoin Cash
Can an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bitcoin Cash Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Purdue University Fort Wayne
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:BFR (rocket)
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus in this discussion. Thank you. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * not done because it is not a merger discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 03:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:ITS launch vehicle
Could an experienced and uninvolved editor please review this merger proposal. Thank you. N2e (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Review, please. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Woah, no uninvolved editor ever looked at this closure request!? --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Like... seriously this is way overdue. We need to get on with a merger/rename but are waiting on someone to close this. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    23:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by Insertcleverphrasehere, an involved editor. The reason for doing so is because no uninvolved editor came forward to determine the consensus. Uninvolved editors: please do the needful when requested. I shall be highly grateful to you. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 03:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fencing practice and techniques
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Fencing practice and techniques? Thanks! Jslimmer (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done by DannyS712. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2019 October
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2019 October? Thank you!  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 19:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done by qedk at 10:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC) –  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_December_2
I think that only an administator can properly close this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * already done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 17)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC atTalk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 17)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Jo-Ann Roberts
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jo-Ann Roberts? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done --DannyS712 (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for requesting this. Interesting, this was on my to-do list to reach out to you as an experienced, non-involved editor who might be interested in assessing consensus. Nonetheless, I appreciate doing this. Doug Mehus  T · C  22:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox film
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox film? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Archived to Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 30 without closure. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done Unarchived to provide formal close as a rough consensus to judiciously credit additional composers. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Andy Ngo
RfC requesting an admin closing. Thanks, Springee (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * DONE Closed as no consensus for the proposed inclusion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bell Media Radio
Would a non-involved editor/administrator please assess the consensus for this expired RfC, which Legobot dropped? There seems to be no opposition, but it would be nice to have this assessed, possibly wrapped in the optional RfC closure tags of your choice. Alternatively, if you know of a way to restart the RfC, that would be fine as well. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Legobot "dropped" it because thirty days had elapsed. WP:RFC explains how an RfC may be extended. But if nobody (other than myself, who frankly doesn't care about the matter) commented there the first time, the chances of more people coming along are small. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, as a non-involved participant, can you close it as "no opposition" in more than a month? I just want something to go back on if I make the changes and it gets reverted, I can say that it was proposed without opposition—of course, someone is welcome to restart a new discussion, but at least we'd have some consensus determination on file. Doug Mehus T · C  00:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed as No opposition expressed. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers? The RfC initiator wrote, "I stand by my decision to start this discussion until it is legitimately closed (preferably by an admin)" in response to an RfC participant writing, "This Rfc is not an Rfc; rather, it is a free-ranging discussion about how to improve a proposed new project subpage recommendation." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus after nearly 3 months with extremely limited participation. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2019 August
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2019 August? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done Iffy★Chat -- 18:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Big Bad (3rd nomination)
was last relisted on December 11. Discussion is no longer productive. Looking for a close. Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * already done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jungle Kekoo
Page speedily deleted under G11 after nom. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 01:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Marvin Minsky
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marvin Minsky? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done -- llywrch (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
When the time comes, could a completely uninvolved admin, and ideally more than one, close this, please? It has policy implications, so I'm asking that it be closed by an admin/admins with no prior involvement in these type of discussions. Pinging, who opened the RfC. Newslinger, I hope you don't mind that I posted this. SarahSV (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating this request, SarahSV. This RfC is a centralized discussion, and multiple editors have requested a closure by a panel of uninvolved administrators. —  Newslinger  talk   18:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * already done by due to lack of volunteers for a panel closure. —  Newslinger   talk   12:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 217
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 217? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done Consensus is against either option A or B exclusively. While there is rough consensus for option C (It depends), there is no consensus on what it should depend on. Some commenters say it should depend on the subject's preference; others say to follow the article's sources; yet others say to follow cultural conventions. WP:MCSTJR may provide some guidance. - MrX 🖋 22:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Veridia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Veridia? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Done Closed as consensus to list Veridia as an Alternative rock band. No consensus for also listing it as a Christian rock band. - MrX 🖋 18:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Singapore/Archive 13
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Singapore/Archive 13? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * done Consensus to omit the rankings paragraph in the lead.- MrX 🖋 18:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * done Closed as consensus to exclude the proposed paragraph (sentence) from the article. - MrX 🖋 18:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fred Hampton
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fred Hampton? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Taking this one. Due to the holidays & family demands on my time, it may be a few days before I complete this closure. -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus. (Sorry, I did not see that you planned to close this until it was too late.) - MrX 🖋 18:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Right-wing populism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Right-wing populism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done Consensus is that the proposed material is UNDUE. - MrX 🖋 19:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus. - MrX 🖋 19:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Lana Del Rey
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC atTalk:Lana Del Rey? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done Consensus for including the following genres in the infobox: Baroque pop, Dream pop, Rock music. - MrX 🖋 19:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Emilia Clarke
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emilia Clarke? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done Consensus to not include one sentence stating that "Clarke dated actor and comedian Seth MacFarlane from 2012 to 2013". - MrX 🖋 19:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fianna Fáil
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fianna Fáil? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus. - MrX 🖋 20:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed as non consensus. - MrX 🖋 20:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Rojava
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rojava? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done There is rough consensus for option B. - MrX 🖋 21:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Sierra McCormick
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sierra McCormick? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done Consensus is to retain the infobox. - MrX 🖋 21:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox person? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done There is consensus to remover the residence parameter. - MrX 🖋 21:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:iPhone 11
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:iPhone 11? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done Consensus is against including a chart that includes pricing information of the iPhone 11 in various countries. - MrX 🖋 20:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Julian Assange
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian Assange? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done No consensus to include "where United Nations special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has said Assange's life is at risk". Rough consensus to include "Assange is incarcerated in HM Prison Belmarsh". - MrX 🖋 21:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019_Hong_Kong_protests
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done Consensus is against changing the talk page archive period to shorter than 14 days. - MrX 🖋 21:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Although closed as "No consensus", I left a suggestion for a path forward to act on the proposed changes. -- llywrch (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Halle synagogue shooting
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2019 Halle synagogue shooting? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Improper RfC mooted by a subsequent move request. - MrX 🖋 20:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * not done as above. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an administrator assess the consensus there? (Though it might not be that hard...) &#124; abequinnfourteen 05:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Was just gonna file a request here. There's been one vote in the last week and unanimous (-1) consensus. The holding page is General sanctions/Michael Jackson. There are templates that need to be made and edited, the closer will need to wrap up all of that too. Any experienced editor can close this too, the consensus is not that hard to assess. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 09:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by someone else. &#124; abequinnfourteen 21:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the RfC is about the creation of an edit filter, I'm leaving a note at the edit filter noticeboard requesting that it be closed by an edit filter manager; it seems pretty clear that the consensus is for the creation of a filter, but such a decision could only be enacted by an efm. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * not done because it is an archived discussion. Please revive the discussion to assess the consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 162
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 162? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * not done because it is an archived discussion. Please revive the discussion to assess the consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn as not done since there is clearly no consensus in the discussion. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 155
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 155? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * not done because it is an archived discussion. Please revive the discussion to assess the consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed not done template. RfCs are regularly closed after they have been archived. That an RfC is archived is not a good reason not to assess the consensus. This RfC appears to have a clear consensus but I am not closing it as it Cunard (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 18
Would an uninvolved editor please assess consensus in this ancient CfD discussion? Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This was relisted to Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 5 --DannyS712 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * already done on 5 December by User:DannyS712. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Hana o Pūn / Futari wa NS
Discussion is about merging Kira Pika to Kirarin Revolution with unclear consensus. lullabying (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done Mgasparin (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donajowsky
Please review Talk:Donajowsky discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 13:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Brahma Chellaney
Could an administrator, please, enforce the AfD decision to delete the article on "Brahma Chellaney"? For some unfathomable reason, the article has been allowed to be resurrected by a single-purpose account immediately after the AfD was closed. This discussion did not yield any results. -The Gnome (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that this is a matter for WP:ANRFC. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. But it's been done anyway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (technical)/Archive 176
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Village pump (technical)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Archived without closure at Village pump (technical)/Archive 176 --DannyS712 (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * not done per above. Please revive the discussion to assess the consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed not done template. An RfC close would be useful to determine whether the "Create a book" link on the sidebar of every article should be retained or removed. Changing the sidebar is a major decision and whether the discussion affecting the sidebar should be closed should not be dependent upon whether the discussion is archived. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   11:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Tulsi Gabbard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   10:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   09:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Sarah Palin
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Sarah Palin? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   09:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Dak To
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Dak To? The map was first added here on 26 June 2019. There were then a series of reverts involving the map on 26 November 2019 and 27 November 2019 before this RfC was created. If the closer concludes there is no consensus, the closer will need to determine using the guidance in WP:NOCONSENSUS which version the article should default to. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * already done by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know? Please close this once 30 days have passed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 17:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of surface features of Mars imaged by Spirit
Please review this discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by interested party. ✅ GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 04:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not done. Since this discussion did not advance a specific proposal, there is not enough context to form a closing statement. If there is disagreement over the topics covered in the discussion, please start a clearly phrased request for comment and request a closure of that. —  Newslinger  talk   05:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 *  Reply - Started RFC. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Xinjiang re-education camps
Contentious move request resulting in no obvious consensus. Relisting may be required under a name that would garner more community consensus. Melmann 11:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   05:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Internet Society
This RFC was the result of an edit war. There is zero support, apart from the editor who made it, to Keep #2 while there is some tacit support to Restore #1. Can it be resolved, so the article can move on? Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done – EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Jeffrey Epstein
Although there are still !votes, there have been no new substantive arguments for some time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The last edit was made eight days ago. This merger request is holding up a DYK nomination, so any help with it would be appreciated. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Melmann 16:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Reactions to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests
Please review the split proposal discussion (And a bold spilt was reverted during the discussion). Matthew hk (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Close comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:CNN
Disagreement over newly added text in the article. The talk page conversation has slowed considerably and the consensus seems reasonably clear, but it would probably be best if an uninvolved editor closed the discussion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Close comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Surf culture
Disagreement over inclusion of an image in an article. Since there is not much discussion and few editors involved, it might not be appropriate for any involved editor to judge whether there's consensus. 152.208.24.217 (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Close comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Greta_Thunberg
Discussion about Amanda Henderson's use of "Sharon" in guessing Thunberg's name; this topic has turned into a defense of Amanda Henderson and plays no role in improving Thunberg's Wiki-page. Please close. Johnrichardhall (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs) 09:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Wagas
Merge discussion started in September 2019 that has had no further comments in the past almost-two-months. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  01:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 00:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of current senators of Canada
Could a non-involved editor or administrator assess the consensus and close the merger proposal for the above-captioned page? Note: you do not need to complete the merge as there are a number of willing regular page editors willing to do this. Thanks. --Doug Mehus T · C  20:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Merge discussion closed. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 02:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (plurals)
Any experienced and uninvolved administrator can close this gigantic discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done Mgasparin (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Autism
Would an uninvolved editor or administrator please review this discussion? Thank you. Note: This discussion started as an RFC, but the RCF was malformed, so it is not an RFC. Just a regular discussion. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done Mgasparin (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Super Audio CD
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Super Audio CD? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus for either inclusion or exclusion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * done Closed as rough consensus in favor of the redirects as proposed in Option 1. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 17
Could an uninvolved editor please determine a consensus from this discussion about the inclusion of one-day retirement contracts in NFL infoboxes? Thanks!  Eagles   24/7  (C)  15:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done. This is the kind of discussion that, even if had been a formal RfC (and it doesn't appear to have been) would not need a formal close. See when to close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow, are you referencing the fourth bullet from that section you linked to?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  16:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes it was stale but I actually should have linked to the section above, specifically the first few sentences of the first paragraph. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So if I make an edit adding in these one-day retirement contracts to an NFL infobox and link to the archived discussion that was never closed with a consensus, and promptly get reverted by an opposing editor from that discussion, what is the next step here?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  17:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches
Any uninvolved editor can close this discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done by Tercer. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Qasem_Soleimani
Would an experienced editor review the RfC at Talk:Qasem_Soleimani, assess consensus and close the discussion? Darren-M  talk  14:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Files for discussion/2020 January 18
- F ASTILY   06:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 27
-- Tavix ( talk ) 00:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter
2 days old, but qualifies for a SNOW closure IMHO. I normally wouldn't bother, but it's a topic that's in the news, and the AfD notice prevents it (I assume) from showing up in Google to readers who may be interested in the topic.  Sandstein  07:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done by (non-admin closure) --Doug Mehus  T · C  21:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
- discussion has trailed off, if not ceased, with one or more proposals which appear to have generated some consensus. In the course of the original discussion, the subject of the ANI discussion has even consented to both an administrator-led mentorship arrangement and to voluntarily curtailing his or her XfD closures until conclusion of said mentorship. Would a non-involved administrator assess the consensus of the original discussion and the sub-proposal(s) that have stemmed from said discussion? Thanks. --Doug Mehus T · C  16:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done - was archived without closure. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Aaron Hernandez
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aaron Hernandez? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 18:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot close this as I participated in the discussion. No clue as to how any closer will handle the consensus (if any) in the workshop section. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 20:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done -- llywrch (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia/Archive 1? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 01:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Closed with a finding that there is broader support in the discussion for the position that these issues must be solved on a case-by-case basis rather than through a general rule. BD2412  T 02:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done. Clear absence of consensus. BD2412  T 02:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Sublette (surname)
Would an uninvolved editor please summarize and close a merge discussion relating to Soblet and Sublette (surname). Klbrain (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Closed as no consensus. BD2412  T 02:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1024
- discussion has died down. 19 votes on 12 November, 20 votes on 13 November, 10 votes on 14 November. Just 4 votes from 15 November to 22 November. Total vote count 53.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * not done per : 3-month-old report; this is too stale to be closed now; it wouldn't be policy compliant to impose an editing restriction 3 months later; that ship has sailed . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting for the record that I have closed the discussion as a warning. BD2412  T 05:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Sharyl Attkisson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done. BD2412  T 05:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314? This is an RfC close review that was archived without closure on 6 October 2019. Like deletion reviews, RfC close reviews should be formally assessed to determine whether the RfC close was correct or incorrect. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view, this is not worth the effort, and should be dropped. It was archived after something like four comments, which doesn't seem enough to overturn a RfC closure even if that were found to be the consensus.  Sandstein   07:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not object to archiving this without action based on your analysis, but pinging RfC close review initiator in case you would like this to be closed. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * not done. Cunard (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 163
I put the above discussion up a while ago and then forgot about it. It doesn't seem there were any opposes (though there was 1 "indifferent"). Could someone please close this, and implement the changes if they agree there is consensus in favor of the proposal? — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 22:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Regen power Pty ltd
Article has been speedy deleted separately as unauthorised re-creation of previously deleted article; concurrent AfD should be closed. Thanks so much. Bookscale (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * already done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed with no consensus to implement the proposed change. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Any uninvolved administrator can close this discussion, which is concerned about the brand new "WikiProject:" prefix. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * already done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  20:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Kobe Bryant
Could an uninvolved administrator close the controversial and contested requested move at Talk:Death of Kobe Bryant. Thanks. — MarkH21talk 20:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done. BD2412  T 02:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for speedy closure of out-of-process move
Please see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, and previous requests for speedy closure by multiple editors at Talk:Syrian civil war. Immediately re-opening an RM when one simply doesn't like the outcome is against process. (Actual process: ask the closer to instead re-list; take the matter to WP:MRV; and wait several months and re-RM again there are new facts and arguments to present; in that order). I'm listing this here because WT:RM doesn't appear to be highly watchlisted; the bogus "anti-RM" could easily run its entire week without being closed. I'm starting to think that a section for speedy closure requests needs to be added to WP:RM/TR, since that actually closely watched and rapidly acted upon by admins and pagemovers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * already done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  03:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done -- llywrch (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:University of Delhi
—usernamekiran (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bryan.Wade
Although eligible to close tomorrow, MfD discussions have tended to languish particularly well past the usual 7 day limit in comparison to AfD and RfD. As you'll see from the consensus, there is ample agreement from all involved editors and administrators that the content dispute has been resolved amicably, other than the nominator, who favours deletion. Would an experienced editor (it doesn't have to be an administrator) assess the consensus and action the recommended actions? --Doug Mehus  T · C  21:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done by Rosguill --DannyS712 (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please close this discussion? - MrX 🖋 18:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done Mgasparin (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybertruck
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Tesla Cybertruck? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done BD2412  T 05:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * archived without closure to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 75 --DannyS712 (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * not done per above. Please revive the discussion to assess the consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 9
Requesting an experienced editor to assess the consensus at Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 9 The issue at hand is contentious, but the outcome of the RfC appears obvious. That's why I'm requesting closure this early. Thanks. Krakkos (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak
Requesting an uninvolved experienced editor to assess the consensus at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Issue is contentious but consensus isn't much in doubt. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done by feminist. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Varadaraja V. Raman
Any uninvolved admin. Discussion about whether three specific items can be included in the article, one proposed to be newly added, and two which were removed absent discussion after long being in the article. 15:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:AEW Bash at the Beach
Merge discussion with no new feedback in a month, closure from any uninvolved experienced editor would be appreciated.LM2000 (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests/Archive 15
Would an uninvolved editor to close this "non-Rfc", !vote on the same issue that trying to revert the consensus / "status-quo" formed by previous RfC. Matthew hk (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Fast & Furious_9
Very clear consensus but the article is move-protected, thus this can only be closed by an administrator. feminist (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done closed and filed a technical move request --DannyS712 (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:20th Century Fox
The discussion seems to have stalled for almost 3 weeks now. While a few have suggested a split, the overwhelming majority support moving the page per existing practice and WP:NAMECHANGES which calls for a rename, instead of a split now that the new name has been undeniably adopted by WP:RELIABLESOURCES. The page is currently move-protected so that it can only be moved by Admins. Starforce13 00:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - it got taken care of. —  Starforce13  01:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * already done by BD2412 --DannyS712 (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done by TonyBallioni --DannyS712 (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/No Time to Die (song)
Several speedy keeps now that this song has been released. Looks like consensus. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * already done by User:BD2412. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Bruce Pascoe
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bruce Pascoe? There is a request for closure at Talk:Bruce Pascoe. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done -- llywrch (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Clear consensus @ Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak
We have 20 supports and 0 opposes for the name change from 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * already done by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   10:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done -- This discussion started up again shortly after the request was made & continues. No clear consensus yet. -- llywrch (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:International Harvester Loadstar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Harvester Loadstar? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 05:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Concealed carry in the United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Concealed carry in the United States? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done -- llywrch (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Request close on BLP Incident for Philip Cross
Can an uninvolved editor please close the discussion on Philip Cross' BLP editing here: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028

GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, no consensus for any action in the discussion, and I don't see anything in the diffs that would justify unilateral action on my part at this time. As the discussion was already archived I'm going to refrain from editing it, but consider this issue closed with no action taken. signed,Rosguill talk 00:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics
Although I am an uninvolved editor, I cannot be able to assess the consensus of this discussion. Any experienced editor can do that. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 01:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 6
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * archived without closure to Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 6 -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 6
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard? Please consider the previous RfC Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 5 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * archived without closure to Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 6 --DannyS712 (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump? You are awesome. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 01:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Big Tech
Would a non-involved editor assess the consensus to merge? Currently showing three editors, plus the nominator, in favour of merging. Only one other registered editor and an anonymous editor have stated opposition !votes with, arguably, weaker rationale. Another editor has made generally supportive comments regarding a potential merger.

Note: you do not need to effect or carry out the merge as it has already been listed at the Proposed article mergers holding cell as awaiting consensus. Doug Mehus  T · C  23:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da
I was the creator of the discussion, I and everyone involved agree it does not belong on that page. Thank you. WB   —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No such page - do you mean Talk:Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm going to say yes to that. If you want to modify that heading, I endorse that. Doug Mehus  T · C  00:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal/Archive 5
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal/Archive 5? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Consensus was to oppose Mr. Zelensky's comments in the lead. I am happy to non-admin close this, but the discussion is in an archive. Is editing an archive permitted? Thanks for any idea. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I responded here. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population? Thank you! --T*U (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

not done. There are two !votes each way plus a ranked choice vote for both. A participant counted 4 to 1. So I'm sorry but must withdraw. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Done -SusanLesch (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea
Could an uninvolved and experienced editor please assess the consensus and close the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea? Thank you. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done -- llywrch (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done -- llywrch (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion_review/Log/2020_February_12
There's a lot going on with this one and many of the normal DRV closers are unable to close the DRV for one reason or another. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done by SilkTork. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79
Relisted twice, most recently back on 31 January – looking for an experienced, uninvolved editor to give these participants closure. Thanks in advance!  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 23:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   20:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Saffron terror
We are done here. Discussion should be closed by an uninvolved editor now. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done –  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing, if any other experienced editor is willing to close it as a team or countersign, ping me. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 08:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 08:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:HSC T&T Spirit
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus for a merge between USAV Spearhead (TSV-1X) and HSC T&T Spirit, discussed at Talk:HSC T&T Spirit. Klbrain (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done Mgasparin (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:The Edge Chronicles
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus for a merge of individual books into The Edge Chronicles series or its related saga subpages. Klbrain (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done Mgasparin (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 7
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 7? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 5
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 5? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Minneapolis
Talk:Minneapolis Would an univolved editor please close this RfC? It was resolved amicably. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We have three concurrent Minneapolis RfCs. It would help if an uninvolved editor can also close Talk:Minneapolis and Talk:Minneapolis. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done for all three RfCs. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Circle network notability discussion
Editors are assuming consensus about notability of Circle network in the split off to an article discussion. It doesn't seem like there are enough involved for a consensus, thus prefer a third party take a look at it. Spshu (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mottainai
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mottainai? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * not done as an RfC participant contested this closure request on my talk page. I do not want to argue about whether this closure request should have been made. I am marking this as closure request withdrawn, without prejudice against another editor filing another closure request. Courtesy pinging, who thanked me for listing this closure request at ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted, interpretation of the outcome appears to be still in dispute, so formal closure would be the best way forward imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I have commented out the not done template so that the bot does not archive this closure request. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll second the request. I took a break and came back to it, and if anything the matter is mired in more interpersonal drama + sourcing questions now than it was before.  It will take an uninvolved party to try to get through to an actual consensus (and it may simply be that consensus did not emerge and that another, more structured discussion is needed as a followup.  Or maybe it's just giving me too much of a headache, and someone else will be able to sense a clear consensus buried in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢   11:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture
Could an uninvolved and experienced editor please assess the consensus and close the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture? Thank you. Hyuny Bunny (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done -SusanLesch (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Chairperson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chairperson? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive 3
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive 3? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * not done Participants seem to have come to a consensus without closure. The content has been removed and the article is stable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention
Could an uninvolved experienced editor close this discussion? Interstellarity (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * not done No need for closure. Participants who want to take it further should see WikiProject Council/Proposals. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:James O'Keefe
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James O'Keefe? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done -SusanLesch (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Right-libertarianism/Archive 6
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Right-libertarianism/Archive 6? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * not done Moot. Apparently no consensus; talk page thread was archived; participants have continued discussing and making proposals on the article talk page. Doesn't look like this one needs a formal closure. Levivich  [dubious – discuss] 17:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Male privilege
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Male privilege? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  19:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Glenn Beck
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Glenn Beck? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done Levivich  [dubious – discuss] 17:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   11:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   11:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Batwoman (TV series)
Nobody has contributed to the discussion in over 19 days and there's been more than enough discussion for someone to end it. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 01:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ninja (video game player)
This requested move needs an admin to assess consensus or the lack of it. Thanks in advance!  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 04:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done OhKayeSierra (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2020 (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) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done as NAC Levivich  [dubious – discuss] 23:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Labour Party (UK)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Labour Party (UK)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done as NAC Levivich  [dubious – discuss] 23:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention
Could an uninvolved experienced editor close this discussion? Interstellarity (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * not done More of a WikiProject discussion than an RfC; now archived; no closure necessary. Levivich  [dubious – discuss] 23:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Liberty Korea Party
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Liberty Korea Party? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[ dubious – discuss] 06:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Iran–Contra affair
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iran–Contra affair? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done Near-unanimous consensus after a few days; proposed change was implemented two months ago and is stable. No close needed. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[ dubious – discuss] 07:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Donji Kraji
Would an experienced editor assess the situation at Talk:Donji_Kraji? Thanks, Ceha --Čeha (razgovor) 12:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donji Kraji? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed with no consensus to proceed with the proposed alternative version. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   10:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done Clear consensus for Additional considerations apply. Not reliable for political information and probably reliable for non-political cultural and social information. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   10:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed with a clear consensus for either Option 3 or Option 4 and a rough consensus for Option 4. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:White privilege
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White privilege? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White privilege? Thank you. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Khalida Jarrar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Khalida Jarrar? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus due to lack of participation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus achieved on the reliability of Paste. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Gas van
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gas van? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed with a clear consensus against the proposed sources and content. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   10:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed as clear consensus for Option 1 or Option 2 and a rough consensus for Option 1. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Oswestry/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oswestry/Archive 1? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed with a clear consensus to include the Welsh language name. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed with a consensus against inclusion of the disputed material. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

WP TV assessment categories
Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_29 needs closing to enable WikiProject TV assessment categories to be updated. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * already done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  22:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_24
Any uninvolved editor can either relist or close the discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done by . * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 22:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Friends
I removed the RFC tag months ago. Recently, the RFC tag was reinserted. The discussion needs a closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was never publicised by because in both  and,  added a blank rfcid parameter to the  tag. For a new RfC, that parameter must be omitted entirely, or Legobot will simply ignore the whole thing. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved my request from the RFC section. George Ho (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan Omar
09:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship
Would an administrator or experienced editor assess the consensus. Thanks. SSSB (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting? Thank you! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? The consensus is clear but as this is a very contentious topic and discussion, I am not closing the RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed with a clear preponderance of editors against an infobox on this article. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Beyoncé discography
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Beyoncé discography? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done Mgasparin (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved editor assess the request made at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, please. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Though involved, I have closed this as moot since the consensus on the core source at issue is established at WP:RSP by reference to multiple discussions. Any unresolved questions about specifics of how to use that source should be raised separately, please, as that would need to be unpicked from the core - and now independently settled - question of reliability. Guy (help!) 11:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy is indeed involved, and therefore the "close" was improper. I also object to the summary that Guy makes here, and suggest reading the thread instead of Guy's summary. The request is still there: would an uninvolved editor look at this please. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests
There is a straw poll concerning one particularly contentious sentence in the article body. The poll will benefit from an independent closer. Deryck C. 19:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Race and intelligence
This is a move request instantiated by over a week ago. The discussion has a very large number of participants, of a range that would benefit from an independent close. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * already done by BD2412. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done feminist (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:TERF
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:TERF? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done SusanLesch (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ronan Farrow
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronan Farrow? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Quillette
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Quillette? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done SusanLesch (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done SusanLesch (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

==== Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester ====
 * Three complicated AfDs (Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester, Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester) have been lingering for some time now, with the first two open (and never relisted) for over a month, and the third with a more complicated history (open 8 January 2020, closed as delete 18 January 2020, overturned to allow a new AfD at DRV on 29 January 2020, the current AfD opened on 29 January 2020, and one relist on 9 February 2020). All three are closely related with lengthy discussions. A careful examination and closure (or relisting) by an uninvolved admin would be duly appreciated. — MarkH21talk 20:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting that Methodist churches was closed by me. This leaves Baptist and Congregational churches needing closure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Do you want to do the Baptist and Congregational churches in Leicester ones, Bearkeep49? I don't think you've participated in those and, since you closed the first one, are familiar with the arguments already. Doug Mehus  T · C  20:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , when I began the project I intended to close all three (and even applied a closing tag to all of them). After having read just about everything that applied I decided I would close Methodist churches as there was a qualitatively different discussion, including the DRV, than Congregational/Baptist whose conversations were very close to each other and hopefully will be closed by the same sysop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Done by at 15:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC); this posted here by — MarkH21talk 08:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:WikiLeaks
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:WikiLeaks? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Closed with a clear consensus against inclusion of the proposed text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Color Developing Agent 3 and Color Developing Agent 4
I'm requesting that an experienced editor please advise on how to move forward with this merge proposal. Qono (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Closed as no quorum. Only two clear opinions were expressed and no further comments in the last 60 days. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 8
Somewhat complicated RfD involving multiple options. feminist (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done --BDD (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 165
Pretty old discussion and needs to be closed. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not an RFC, and it would be almost impossible to determine "consensus" from a grab-bag of editors saying either "This seems like a good idea, but I don't know how to go about accomplishing/implementing it" or "This seems like a bad idea, and here's why", unless the consensus would simply be "No consensus Default to status quo." Moreover, closing threads after they've already been archived is rarely done. Unarchiving would be the way to go about it if it had been archived recently, but more than 30 newer threads have already been archived. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am removing the request. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * not done * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 22:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle
Any uninvolved editor can assess the consensus of this RfC. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you! Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)
Would an uninvolved sysop (or otherwise experienced editor) please assess the consensus? We've had a good discussion, with many good suggestions having been worked into the proposed naming convention change. I think this is now stable; everybody who is interested in the topic appears to have had their say. As the topic has a huge history going back to 2007 and there's been a lot of controversy about it in the past, there's a bit of reading to do; it's not a short RfC. Note that the media has been watching this; three outlets have reported about the RfC (and the Wikipedia discussion on the topic has received media attention before). Thanks in advance.  Schwede 66  01:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ross Finlayson (User:Rsfinlayson), a major contributor to related discussions such as at New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 25, last edited Wikipedia a few days before the RfC started. Maybe he is on holiday or something. He may have opposed the RfC. His views can be seen in the discussion I have just linked. This may not make much difference to the support/oppose vote numbers, but I think worth mentioning. Nurg (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you! Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Bernie Sanders
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bernie Sanders? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you! Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Peppermint (drag queen)
RfC has been open for more than 30 days, and participation has waned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you! Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Ice Road Truckers episodes
Please review Articles for deletion/List of Ice Road Truckers episodes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done by Xinbenlv. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:The Boxmasters/GA2
GAR that was originally closed as "Delist" until I realized that the article had been compromised by COI accounts. Consensus is that the article is fine to keep as a GA for now. As this discussion was started all the way back in October I'd like it closed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests
Could an experienced uninvolved editor please review Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done by Ncmvocalist. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Eli Cohen
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eli Cohen? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   05:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mobile launcher platform
Please close the discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done MrClog (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Penis (disambiguation)
Any time after this merger proposal has been outstanding, would a non-involved editor assess the consensus and close the merger discussion? If no opposition, close as no objection after a period of time. Thanks.

Note: you do not need to effect or carry out the merge as it has already been listed at the Proposed article mergers holding cell as awaiting consensus. --Doug Mehus T · C  00:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done —  Newslinger  talk   07:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1032
Please close the discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – I found the outcome on my talk page. --Soumyabrata wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 12:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done (for bot)). * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Next Italian general election
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Next Italian general election? Please consider in your close Talk:Next Italian general election, where there is disagreement about the consensus. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done llywrch (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome
Could an uninvolved admin please assess consensus and close the RfC on this page? There hasn't been active discussion in some time, and it has run for a month. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ian Smith
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ian Smith? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Qasem Soleimani
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Qasem Soleimani? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * done—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 01:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party (United States)
Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)? Thanks, Sdkb (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Red Ash (disambiguation)
This discussion has been relisted twice: 28 January 2020 and 5 March 2020. There were no new comments after either relist. Could an experienced closer please close this? (I'm not sure if I will, but I'm posting this here in case I don't.) Steel1943  (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done by JHunterJ.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
A very high profile article that has been subject to multiple requested moves and the question of whether there should be a pause or not needs resolving soon. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 23
Can someone please close the discussion? Helper201 (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done Wait at least seven days for the discussion to run its course. Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Current interpretations of WP:NCORP fail to adequately evaluate Art Galleries
Would an experienced admin please summarize and officially close this discussion on how notability for organizations and companies should be applied to art galleries? Thank you! Qono (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * the consensus in this discussion is obvious and official closure is unnecessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus was not clear to me and I think that this long, varied discussion would benefit from a closing summary. Qono (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would second 's opinion. While in a perfect world it would be nice to have a summary of all of the various arguments raised in the discussion, ultimately the concrete proposals were all resoundingly shot down, and I don't know that it's the best use of our limited volunteer resources to ask someone to summarize the discussion at this time. signed,Rosguill talk 01:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, that an official closure of this rather convoluted discussion is unnecessary. BD2412  T 01:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. For what it's worth, I asked for this close because this discussion came up during a recent AfD. I thought it would be useful to have an official summary to help guide future discussions about galleries with questionable notability, but I accept that I am outnumbered here. Qono (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 *  Support Official Close - I support an official closure of this long discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Alsee (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Alsee (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of the oldest living people
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of the oldest living people? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of American films of 2019
May an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:List of American films of 2019 and close it accordingly? There has been little activity in the discussion for some time now. — Matthew  - (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * NB: the discussion has now been archived to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 219 Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've unarchived the RfC. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done and section pin removed. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth II
RFC open at Talk:Elizabeth II since 7 February, discussion has had little comment since early March. Could someone close it please? Kahastok talk 08:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Dubai Marina
Could an uninvolved editor or administrator close this discussion? Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done — JFG talk 17:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting? Thank you! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Didn't get contacted by anyone, so I'm assuming it's been accepted and marking this done. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:The Lord of the Rings
Need closure for this discussion. Lightburst (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done by someone else on 18 March. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   03:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firejuggler86 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Julian Assange
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian Assange? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2020 March 18
This DRV is 8 days overdue to be closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Please, for the love of all that is good, just make it end already. 106.130.209.70 (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It has now been closed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done by User:Black Kite per this edit on 4 April. EdJohnston (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
I would appreciate if an experienced editor could please assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals). Thanks, Sdkb (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 12:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
Please review, asses and close this discussion on the NPOV noticeboard Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.Keith Johnston (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now archived at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 80. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done per above. Please revive the discussion for closure. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 13:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:History of English
Please close the discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done by User:Interstellarity. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 13:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 in the United Kingdom
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2020 in the United Kingdom? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Done - Ryk72 talk 03:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The closure would better be carried out by an admin please. -- M h hossein   talk 06:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done by Vanamonde93.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done for the bot. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also done by Vanamonde93.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done for the bot. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette? Thanks,—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Yameen
Please relist or review Articles for deletion/Yameen. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done by Callanecc. The AfD was relisted on 4 April 2020. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Wrong venue, article AfD'd. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 17:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why have you brought this here? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * not done -- Somebody thought that our article on Hungarian Spectrum should be deleted due to "self promotion, soap boxing, political activism". They complained about this at WP:AN. At that point someone pointed them to the AfD process, so now we have an open discussion at Articles for deletion/Hungarian Spectrum. There is no remaining issue to be settled at WP:AN/RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're both rifght, I should have waited for the AfD to finish. One user presented new evidence that the initiator, a Hungarian IP, is acting in fear of censorship, so we shoudl discuss that instead. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 22:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:RMS Queen Mary 2
Requested move has been open for three weeks now, and nothing has been added to the discussion in the last 10 days. --Ahecht (<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK PAGE ) 21:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–present)
RM thas has been stale for a month. © Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ (en-3). 18:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done by wbm1058 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC) –  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Penrose tiling/1
This seems to have run its course (one new participant in two months). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done – The result was Keep Listed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages
Please relist the discussion. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 13:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Closed by <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work ) </b> 11:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC) –  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 02:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Diocese of Helsinki
RM thas has been stale for a month. © Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ (en-3). 18:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Closed by BD2412  T 14:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC) –  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 02:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Hester Thrale
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hester Thrale? Thanks, 215lax (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Hester Thrale, there is no section named "RfC about change to Hester Piozzi"; nor can I find any evidence that an RfC has ever been held on that page. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly he means Talk:Hester Thrale about moving to the title "Hester Piozzi". Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  03:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then it refers to an ongoing WP:RM, and not to a WP:RFC at all. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This entry fixed – now links to requested move.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 15:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * and closed.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)? Assuming a positive result, you can just ping me in the closure or in the edit summary and I can implement the result. Thanks, Alsee (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * archived without consensus at Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_166. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I brought it back out of the archive. Alsee (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Robot is a robot. It will archive the discussion again. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Alsee, I have closed the discussion as a clear consensus to proceed. Good luck with it! SilkTork (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding close for the robot :). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yameen
Please review Articles for deletion/Yameen. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * already done by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left Front (India)
Articles for deletion/Left Front (India) could benefit from an administrator with an understanding of Indian politics and so I list it here as an uninvolved sysop who could myself theoretically close this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * already done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Operation Victory
Please could an impartial admin deliver consensus to this discussion. SmartyPants22 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Closed by Number   5  7  13:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC) –  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 08:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Biden
Please initiate a team close of uninvolved administrators. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been taken care of at WP:AN, Two administrators have volunteered to close.  CBS 527 Talk 00:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done Mz7 (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum
To end a current editing dispute, a formal close would be much appreciated. --MrClog (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done. There is consensus to use the phrase 'on a balance of probabilities' when referring to the fact finding judgment of the civil court. See the RfC closure here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive319
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive319? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you! Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you! Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ronald Reagan
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Ronald Reagan? As it is a two-part question, special care should be taken to abide by WP:NOTVOTE. Thanks, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you! Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Sustainable business

 * Would any uninvolved editor assess the consensus for a merge from Sustainable dentistry to Sustainable business, with a discussion at Talk:Sustainable business. Klbrain (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Grand Mufti of India

 * Poorly raised with various technical issues including merge templates not pointing to discussion section and seems only supported by proposer who may have a negative bias against the subject.  Limited discussion but against merge.  I do not wish to close as involved and under discretionary sanctions IPA area.  Please close.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Fringe theories/Noticeboard

 * It is requested that an uninvolved administrator, or perhaps a team of administrators, assess the consensus at Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The consensus was a three admin close and also what SilkTork suggested.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  05:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The outcome of the current discussion at RSN is highly relevant to outcome of this RFC, because the source being discussed there is the source that most directly addresses the question that the RFC is raising. At this stage, I suggest allowing the RSN discussion to conclude before closing the FTN discussion. Ideally, both discussions should be closed by the same team of admins, to ensure that the conclusions of the two discussions are consistent with one another. 2600:1004:B12C:16E5:BDFF:3E49:E5B:E995 (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. There was never a consensus about a closing panel being necessary, and the RSN thread doesn't have to be closed first (it's just forum shopping). This RFC shouldn't be NAC'd but otherwise it's a normal RFC like any other, and should be closed like any other. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 14:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's going to be difficult to find the right closer let alone multiple right closers. Having someone who can put together a close that will be respected, even if not agreed with, by all participants is important given the contentiousness of the issue (and our general collectively brittle state as we all isolate to varying degrees or otherwise deal with the effects of the pandemic). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * some admins will be off work or working reduced hours because of the pandemic and thus have more time on their hands. Those who are still working will have no time for recreational activities in their time off work and will be stuck at home and thus will also have more time on their hands. So really it is more likely you will be able to assemble a three person admin close because of the lockdown, in my view.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  16:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * you were part of a three person close and it caused zero drama, no one disputed it. When a one admin tried to close it before that there was a split community with enormous drama and endless debates. I don’t see why the same cannot be done again, really there is no other option.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  16:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a well reasoned close will normally stick. I agreed that AfD would have benefited from a panel close and still think that was the right decision for a number of factors that were present there. That AfD had many more participants for instance than this RfC. I don't think it's healthy for the project, including in this dispute area, for that to be the requirement for every major discussion going forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , there are editors on both sides who are either deeply emotional or even unhinged at times with this topic area, a few of whom really should be topic banned but won’t be because diffs can not demonstrate the just about civil but highly disruptive WP:BLUDGEONing of the topic area. ArbCom and AN/I don’t do anything about this type of disruptive behaviour. They dispute every microscopic detail and every word, don’t give an inch, don’t care about policies and guidelines for sources, just their POV and they are very obsessive. In fairness to me, you have not read this RfC so I do feel for that reason your opinion is in error.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  17:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did read the RfC for its first two weeks and it is possible that it has changed radically in nature since then. However, even if it has, I re-iterate that I think having every major discussion in any given contentious area need to be closed by a panel would be a bad practice for the encyclopedia. If we had an abundance of editors I'd think differently but since we have backlogs in numerous places and single closer has worked at numerous areas full of similar issues to R+I I don't see why this RfC needs a panel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am of course talking about this article, Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination) in my above comment.-- Literaturegeek  |  T@1k?  16:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * An IP editor has been canvassing specific admins with non-neutral requests for input or closure. Transparency from any admins who have been solicited this way would be appreciated. –dlthewave ☎ 16:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm guessing you're talking about me. I would not characterize that the message that the IP left me as a non-neutral request for closure. I understand why someone might characterize their request to Silk Tork as non-neutral but effectively you're saying that a person who'd you otherwise would trust to be a closer suddenly because of one comment is no longer someone you would trust. That's too bad because I think Silk Tork, and perhaps others I'm not aware of, would have been a superb closer for this issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is why I have my panties in a bunch about this. If you ask an admin to close and they say yes, then people will object because the admin was canvassed. (Doesn't matter who the admin is.) If you ask an admin to close, and they say no because they don't want to be canvassed, then we've knocked a potential closer out of the pool. And that's just as big of a problem! My ABF interpretation (and I admit it's ABF) is that the IP is trying to knock admin out of the pool of potential closers by asking them to close, knowing full well others will object and the admin will demur, as happened with.
 * The IP has, on multiple occasions, expressed the need to have a "blue ribbon panel" of admins, specifically selected to be "free of bias". They've explicitly said that we can't just have any "random" admin close this, because of purported bias concerns. This has a chilling effect. As you said, it's going to be really hard to find a closer.
 * Additionally, is there anything that makes this RFC more important than any of the other RFCs waiting for closure? Why should one RFC take up so many admin's time with this select-a-closer nonsense, all coming from one IP?
 * This is on top of an RSN being opened at the tail end of the RFC and purporting to affect the outcome of the RFC. This was done by a "no" advocate in the RFC, and now the IP is canvassing admin to close both, which I see as trying to "force" a close on a half-baked RSN thread (wherein there is obviously no consensus in that thread, because the question was malformed, and it's just yet another forum for the same "yes" and "no" !voters [myself included] to argue the same issues as in the RFC).
 * Do you agree with this: the participants in a discussion do not select the closer of that discussion. It's antithetical to the principle of having an "uninvolved" closer. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the canvassing message is neutrally-worded or not; it's inappropriate to ask a specific admin to close a specific thread. (In the same way that it's inappropriate to ask a specific admin to sanction a specific editor.) We have noticeboards specifically for these purposes.
 * I think either SilkTork or you would make great choices for closers, individually or as part of a panel. And I also think there are literally hundreds of other admin who would also make a great choice. Having an editor push this hard to recruit hand-selected admin to close is inappropriate (even if I agree with the particular selections), and more importantly, really harmful, because it chases potential closers away, while also sucking up limited resources that are needed elsewhere. And a dynamic IP on top of it, so we can't even be sure how many admin were solicited or who they were. Ugh, I categorize this as civil-POV-pushing-gaming-of-consensus. Sure, they're being polite and that's great, but what they're doing is breaking our system for making decisions. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Levivich, you do not seriously expect the discussion here to produce an admin willing to close, do you? Do you really think that, at this stage, any admin who hasn't been directly asked is going to voluntarily subject themselves to the inevitable drama that will result? At this stage there are two choices:
 * 1: The discussion(s) can be closed by Barkeep49, or some other admin (or group of admins) who have been directly asked, and who therefore have a reason to subject themselves to this difficulty.
 * 2: The discussion(s) can remain open indefinitely, possibly for months, until they're eventually moved into the noticeboard archives without a formal closure, and then the same dispute continues on the article's talk page where it had been before.
 * I want to avoid option "2". This dispute has been churning for the past four months, and I don't want it to continue for another four months. Somehow it will need to be resolved, and there are a limited number of ways that's possible, especially now that my request for dispute resolution has been rejected. The only other option anyone has proposed for how to resolve it is opening an ArbCom case. If someone would rather do that instead, that would be fine with me also. 2600:1004:B14C:5FEB:A5C7:A31D:F041:4AE2 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I could not disagree with you more. Literally, I think the opposite of what you wrote, on every single point.
 * 1. This RFC should not be closed right now at all, because new editors are still joining the discussion almost daily. We had new !votes come in today (Apr 9), and Apr 8, Apr 7, Apr 5, Apr 1, Mar 31, etc. This discussion isn't done yet.
 * 2. Yes, I think that by listing the discussion here, it will be closed. Eventually. There are a lot of RFCs listed here, some much older than this one. I don't think this is the most-pressing RFC on this board right now, but eventually, someone will close it.
 * 3. Asking an admin doesn't give them "a reason to subject themselves to this difficulty". I'm not sure how many times I can say that, at least in my firmly-held opinion, asking a specific admin to close a specific discussion is inappropriate. Giving an admin "a reason" is inappropriate. They're volunteers. They shouldn't feel obligated, they shouldn't be put into an awkward position, they shouldn't be subjected to canvassing. If an admin was going to close an RFC anyway, and then is asked to close it, it will appear that they are only closing it because they were asked, which is unfair to the admin and impinges on the perception of their impartiality. If an admin was going to close another RFC and is asked to close this one, they may feel obligated to close this one instead of the other one. That robs the other RFC of a closer, which isn't fair to those participants. It also "tells" the admin where to volunteer their time, which isn't fair to the admin. If an admin was going to close an RFC anyway, and is asked to close it, and declines to close it so as to avoid the appearance of canvassing, that robs the RFC of a closer. That's also unfair, to the participants and to the admin. An admin who wasn't going to close anything may feel obligated upon being asked, or may be put in the uncomfortable position of either having to say "no" or having to close an RFC they didn't want to close. That's unfair to the admin and unfair to participants if it results in a closer who really isn't "into it". No matter how you cut it, asking a specific admin to close a specific discussion results in unfairness to the admin and to other editors.
 * 4. I find it extremely offensive to suggest that some admin are qualified to close this RFC but others are not. The only admin who aren't qualified to close this RFC are the ones who !voted in it. All other admin have been vetted by the community. Any uninvolved admin is qualified to close any RFC, with very few exceptions.
 * 5. This dispute churns because you're churning it. As are other "no" !voters. There is now: (a) the RFC, (b) an RSN, (c) this ANRFC, (d) discussion on at least three admin's talk pages, and (e) I don't know where else because I can't figure out how to check the contribs of a dynamic IP.
 * 6. There are not two options here; there is only one, which is that all participants in the RFC stop trying to engineer a close of the RFC, and we let the natural consensus process unfold. Volunteers will volunteer, maybe alone, maybe in a group, to close this RFC when the time is right. All we participants have to do is shut up and wait patiently. WP:NORUSH, WP:VOLUNTEER, etc. Oh and since there is this whole pandemic thing going on, maybe we even give everyone a little more time than usual, eh? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's very ironic of you to accuse me of churning the dispute, considering you're the person who attempted to rename the article to "race and intelligence myth". I'm not the person who's been blanking sections of the article, trying to delete it, trying to rename it, or trying to classify it as "fringe" (which is an obvious prelude to more removals of content, if the RFC is decided in NightHeron's favor). The reason I became involved in that article is because I oppose what the rest of you are trying to do.
 * You have an extremely unrealistic understanding of this situation. This isn't a normal RFC, and never really was, as it's very unusual for the person who started the RFC to so completely dominate it in an effort to ensure their point of view wins. At this stage, whichever admin closes the discussion will be required to read around 40,000 words of text, along with the secondary discussions here and at RSN. The amount of time and effort required will continue to increase as the discussion grows longer and longer. I've been told by multiple admins that it's common for RFCs to never receive a formal closure, and that outcome is looking increasingly likely for this one. After 23 days, the vote in the RFC is split with 25 votes in each direction, so it's unlikely that continuing to accumulate more votes will have much effect besides making the closing admin's task even more difficult.
 * One outcome that I do is acknowledge as possible is that the RFC will eventually be given a zero-effort close by an admin who did not read the entire discussion, like Spartaz's initial "delete" close in the AFD. But I think most people do not want that outcome, and I would hope you don't want it either. 2600:1004:B14C:5FEB:A5C7:A31D:F041:4AE2 (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , a lot of our systems break if you decide to assume bad faith. Civil-POV pushing is a behavior violation; if you have the diffs to back it up the right thing to do is not say it here (this is not a conduct forum) but go to WP:AE and file a proper report. Otherwise I will continue to assume that the IP is an editor in good standing and respond accordingly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's true. I'll spare you the link to the suicide pact essay :-) I think you may be right about a noticeboard but I'm loathe to escalate this further. This is already out of control here for ANFRC–apologies to Rose, Cunard and the other regulars for the walls of text. (I would hat it but I'm afraid I'd break the page.) Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 22:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with canvassing is that when good-faith editors are canvassed, their participation in the discussion is immediately suspect through no fault of their own. It's highly inappropriate for a single-purpose account to ask admins of their choosing to provide input or orchestrate a close, and it's also not great for admins to enable this behavior by showing up to the discussion as requested. I agree that this should be further addressed at AE or ANI.
 * I also have no concerns about a "random admin" botching the close. All of our admins were chosen for their competence and they generally have good self-awareness of which tasks are within their wheelhouse. If an editor is concerned about finding a closer, they should post a notice here. That's what ANRFC is for. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A single admin closing this will automatically have their decision challenged, accused of biased or more likely attacked on such a divisive article. Only a three person admin close will be accepted. Just look at the drama here where no one agrees, never mind the RfC.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  18:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that a three person team would be best. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    23:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a diff to SilkTork’s suggested three person close. Just look at this discussion where editors on both sides are facing the reality that a three person close is the only way out of this:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard%23Discussion_of_appropriateness_of_proposed/solicited_closing_of_this_RfC you can clearly see the amount of drama and accusations going back and forth just in trying to get a close done. I think everyone wants a close that means they can accept it and move on. Three trusted admins will correct each other on any potential bias resulting in a close that will have to be accepted by both sides no matter which side gets butt hurt. I have actually left the RfC because it is far too toxic with insults and insinuations. A one admin close will certainly not be accepted because the RfC voting numbers and arguments are emotionally intense, split down the middle and deeply polarised and will inevitably result in instant drama with accusations of bias.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  17:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think SilkTork is suggesting a three person close. I think SilkTork is explaining how such a request could be made. I've commented on the rest of this above so I won't repeat myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, rereading his comment, and the context of it, your interpretation may actually be more accurate. I don’t like to misrepresent people. SilkTork, on further thought, was neutral on the idea as I recall he was bowing out at that point, I forgot the context. I read too much into it, have struck above. Thanks for your feedback .-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have an extremely unrealistic understanding of this situation. This isn't a normal RFC, and never really was, as it's very unusual for the person who started the RFC to so completely dominate it in an effort to ensure their point of view wins. At this stage, whichever admin closes the discussion will be required to read around 40,000 words of text, along with the secondary discussions here and at RSN. The amount of time and effort required will continue to increase as the discussion grows longer and longer. I've been told by multiple admins that it's common for RFCs to never receive a formal closure, and that outcome is looking increasingly likely for this one. After 23 days, the vote in the RFC is split with 25 votes in each direction, so it's unlikely that continuing to accumulate more votes will have much effect besides making the closing admin's task even more difficult.
 * One outcome that I do is acknowledge as possible is that the RFC will eventually be given a zero-effort close by an admin who did not read the entire discussion, like Spartaz's initial "delete" close in the AFD. But I think most people do not want that outcome, and I would hope you don't want it either. 2600:1004:B14C:5FEB:A5C7:A31D:F041:4AE2 (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , a lot of our systems break if you decide to assume bad faith. Civil-POV pushing is a behavior violation; if you have the diffs to back it up the right thing to do is not say it here (this is not a conduct forum) but go to WP:AE and file a proper report. Otherwise I will continue to assume that the IP is an editor in good standing and respond accordingly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's true. I'll spare you the link to the suicide pact essay :-) I think you may be right about a noticeboard but I'm loathe to escalate this further. This is already out of control here for ANFRC–apologies to Rose, Cunard and the other regulars for the walls of text. (I would hat it but I'm afraid I'd break the page.) Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 22:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with canvassing is that when good-faith editors are canvassed, their participation in the discussion is immediately suspect through no fault of their own. It's highly inappropriate for a single-purpose account to ask admins of their choosing to provide input or orchestrate a close, and it's also not great for admins to enable this behavior by showing up to the discussion as requested. I agree that this should be further addressed at AE or ANI.
 * I also have no concerns about a "random admin" botching the close. All of our admins were chosen for their competence and they generally have good self-awareness of which tasks are within their wheelhouse. If an editor is concerned about finding a closer, they should post a notice here. That's what ANRFC is for. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A single admin closing this will automatically have their decision challenged, accused of biased or more likely attacked on such a divisive article. Only a three person admin close will be accepted. Just look at the drama here where no one agrees, never mind the RfC.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  18:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that a three person team would be best. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    23:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a diff to SilkTork’s suggested three person close. Just look at this discussion where editors on both sides are facing the reality that a three person close is the only way out of this:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard%23Discussion_of_appropriateness_of_proposed/solicited_closing_of_this_RfC you can clearly see the amount of drama and accusations going back and forth just in trying to get a close done. I think everyone wants a close that means they can accept it and move on. Three trusted admins will correct each other on any potential bias resulting in a close that will have to be accepted by both sides no matter which side gets butt hurt. I have actually left the RfC because it is far too toxic with insults and insinuations. A one admin close will certainly not be accepted because the RfC voting numbers and arguments are emotionally intense, split down the middle and deeply polarised and will inevitably result in instant drama with accusations of bias.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  17:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think SilkTork is suggesting a three person close. I think SilkTork is explaining how such a request could be made. I've commented on the rest of this above so I won't repeat myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, rereading his comment, and the context of it, your interpretation may actually be more accurate. I don’t like to misrepresent people. SilkTork, on further thought, was neutral on the idea as I recall he was bowing out at that point, I forgot the context. I read too much into it, have struck above. Thanks for your feedback .-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am requesting again that this discussion be assessed and closed. I think any uninvolved administrator or set of administrators will suffice. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In my post here I predicted that no admin who wasn't directly asked would volunteer to close this RFC. RFCs are typically closed after 30 days, so I think my prediction is being borne out.


 * You've said you don't want to close the RFC yourself and I won't pressure you to change your mind about that, but is there anything you can do to help ensure this RFC is closed properly? Literaturegeek, Insertcleverphrasehere, Bpesta22 and I all have expressed the view that it should be closed by a team of three admins like the AFD was, so that type of closure would be best. 2600:1004:B161:F80D:B9BC:F15E:F101:6CC1 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 2600:1004, as I've expressed to you I am opposed to a team close on this RfC. I am opposed because I do not believe this conflict area is going away, we have only so many qualified closers, we only have so much capacity and I argue we don't even have enough capacity for our existing processes, which includes even controversial RfCs being closed by a single closer. Beyond that I also have my own difficulty at getting a panel of closers for a recent RFC (WP:MEDMOS2020) where a lot of begging on a highly visible board eventually yielded two closers. So even if I did believe in a team close I would not have any brilliant ideas about how to find such sysops. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. do you have any ideas? As in Barkeep49's case, I accept that you do not wish to close the RFC yourself, so I'm just asking for some more general help or guidance with respect to obtaining a proper closure. 2600:1004:B161:F80D:B9BC:F15E:F101:6CC1 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 2600:: please try to be patient. There are 34 other RfCs ahead of this one, most of which were opened 40-60 days ago, and volunteers who patrol here typically work their way down from the top. It's unlikely that we'll get bumped to the front of the queue since there's no special urgency to this discussion. When it's our turn, a competent admin will come along and close it, or a group close will be organized in the unlikely event that it's considered necessary. –dlthewave ☎ 14:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * u|Barkeep49, have you considered that the very recent last AfD for this article/topic area attracted what some viewed as a WP:SUPERVOTE by a closing admin requiring a community deletion review? And that another admin (who several editors raised concerns in their later RfB that they had a history of doing supervotes on other closes as well and caused their RfB to be rejected) posted a proposed close they were intending to do, but were beaten to it, that was opposite to the three person close? That led to a significant drain on community time with a long deletion review before a team close was recommended which overturned the original close. I guess many of us, on both sides of the debate, would like a close that is free from allegations of a supervote so we can accept it and move on. Few of us want to go through the whole community review and drama again on an RfC review discussion. MEDMOS is nowhere near as controversial as race and intelligence. I guess a one admin close that sticks strictly to policy and is done to a high quality could be accepted, but the concern of a supervote (or false allegation of supervote) is there given the controversial nature of this topic, thus perpetuating rather than resolving the drama in this topic area.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  17:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Have I considered that a panel close was necessary for that AfD? Yes. Did I think the panel was right then? Yes. Do I think it was right in retrospect? Yes. And yet I still don't think a panel is necessary here. I respect that you think differently and am not going to try and convince you otherwise. Nor should you feel the need to convince me - I am not going to be closing that RfC whether individually or on a panel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for taking the time to read and reply. You have now heard all my points of view, thank you for considering them, I have nothing further to add. I will not disturb your editing experience with this any further.-- Literaturegeek  |  T@1k?  18:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope this gets closed soon. It has turned into a text wall on top of a text wall, largely due to WP:BLUDGEON in true excess by a couple of parties on one side, followed by specific "closing candidate" canvassing of particular admins by an anon on the other side. I think it would be especially helpful for a) the three-uninvolved-admins panel to form  and start working on it; b) refactor with  and  every single bludgeon post (i.e., every comment and block of comments following any of the actual !votes), because the page is so think with e-yelling that it discourages further new input; and c) announce that the three-admin review has started and that the RfC will be formally closed to new comments at X date and time (UTC). Don't take any guff from people wanting to "vote you off" the panel; F that noise. Everyone in that discussion has a viewpoint, and everyone coming to it is going to have one; the whole point of a panel is to mitigate bias, and it's not likely that any participant in that debate with be perfectly happy with every single admin who volunteers to wade through that mess.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My top priority is to finish my Arbcom submission but following that I would be willing, as an uninvolved administrator, to clerk that discussion by collapsing some of the extended discussion which is cluttering the noticeboard. Alternatively, and this might be better, the RfC could be moved, at this point, to its own page with a pointer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think your second suggestion, to move the RFC to its own page, is the better one. I don't agree with the proposal to collapse all the non-vote comments. While some of these comments are mere bludgeoning, there are others that make important points, such as the posts pointing out how some of the cited sources say do not say what they're claimed to say, or comments explaining how "race" and "intelligence" are defined in the research this RFC is about. In my opinion we should not discourage subsequent voters from reading those comments. I also think it's almost impossible for any person to be a truly objective judge of what comments are bludgeoning, and what comments make important points, and any decision about which discussions to collapse would inevitable give everyone yet another thing to argue about. 2600:1004:B127:D823:71A5:A349:3F5C:2EA7 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some sources were significantly misrepresented and closing/hatting comments could bias the outcome of the RfC by suppressing certain replies. In any event, the conversations below comments have all come to an end. The ongoing comments are in the subsections below the RfC.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  19:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * done by . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2020 March
– Please close this MRV.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 08:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done by King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; at 08:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC).  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 17:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2020 March
– Please close this MRV.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 08:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * done by King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; at 08:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC).  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 17:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)