Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 31

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#user:Za-ari-masen....
Need formal closure of the ANI thread at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046 since a topic ban was proposed and it saw participation by more than a dozen editors. Orientls (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done, discussion was already archived and there's no consensus for sanctions. signed,Rosguill talk 20:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305
Pretty polarised response on this one. Can I request an experienced closer close the discussion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done, there don't appear to be any content decisions hinging on the outcome of this discussion. As MEMRI primarily produces primary source documents, citations to it will primarily be contextualized by other sources; cases where we would actually be directly relying on MEMRI's reliability are going to be extremely rare. Thus, I don't see the value of trying to tease out a consensus from a clearly polarized discussion. I had already posted a surface-level assessment of the discussion at WP:New page patrol source guide which I think is sufficient. signed,Rosguill talk 20:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Tyson Foods
Would an uninvolved editor or admin please assist in closing the discussion? PackMecEng (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * done.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Lean finely textured beef in its finished form.png
Upon receiving an explanation regarding the file at the discussion, the nominator has withdrawn, and no other commentary has ensued as of this post. Qualifies for speedy keep. North America1000 17:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * done.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 05:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:George_Washington_Bush
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion and close it? -- Johnosaunders (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Done by  SITH   (talk)   at 20:15 on 26 September 2020 (UTC) –  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 05:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Help talk:IPA/Italian
Nardog (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * done Lev!vich 07:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Nikolai_Lukashenko
This has only been open a few days, however, it deals with a sensitive WP:BLP question and - at 5-0 in support - is currently trending to a WP:SNOW close. Chetsford (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Done Unnamed anon (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Village_pump_(policy)
This well attended discussion has run its course and would benefit from closure by an administrator or experienced editor. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * done by . Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
– Asking for closure of this discussion, please.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 08:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 20:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran
Would an uninvolved editor or admin please evaluate consensus in this discussion? Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by signed,Rosguill talk 19:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Would an uninvolved editor or admin please evaluate consensus in this discussion? Note: the discussion spans several subsections. - MrX 🖋 15:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Bumping this as a high-priority, time-sensitive task. "Take 69" is unfortunately only mildly hyperbolic, and a formal close is badly needed to put a cap on the spiraling discussion. Here is my assessment of the situation that I posted at the page, which is a little blunt but hopefully neutral enough to be appropriate for here:
 * &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I second the urgency to close this discussion with an appropriate summary. Also to close the associated RfC, which sought to obtain a consensus on the specific statement derived from the previous discussions. There are no real objections to the consensus statement, though, of course, the closer can determine a result independently.  The process of deriving a simple statement for the article lead describing Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic began in April.  Here 4-5 months later the lead still has no statement on this critically important issue of the day.  The issue festers; we need to resolve it and move on; something is broken. Bdushaw (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A recent development -- I don't know how this affects the close -- is that, one of the most persistent opponents of the Covid content, has been topic banned from American Politics. Pinging him as a courtesy even though he is unable to comment further.  SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is WP:NO DEADLINE. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I could not disagree more adamantly with the application of that essay to this circumstance. A fairly clear majority of editors feel that there should be something in the lead, and a prolonged absence from the lead of an extremely high-profile article is very much a WP:DEADLINEISNOW situation, not a no deadline situation. Additionally, the amount of wasted editor effort through the continuing spiraling discussion after all the major arguments have already been debated at length is reason itself for this to be considered a time-sensitive matter. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I could not disagree more adamantly with the application of that essay to this circumstance. A fairly clear majority of editors feel that there should be something in the lead, and a prolonged absence from the lead of an extremely high-profile article is very much a WP:DEADLINEISNOW situation, not a no deadline situation. Additionally, the amount of wasted editor effort through the continuing spiraling discussion after all the major arguments have already been debated at length is reason itself for this to be considered a time-sensitive matter. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * That's not an WP:RfC, nor apparently was it ever one, so it lacks any sort of officialness or need for any sort of official close (and it shouldn't be listed at ANRFC, nor should it be DNAUed). There is however an RfC on the subject on that talkpage, which was opened August 5, so that has a few more weeks to run: Talk:Donald Trump. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I replied to this at WP:AN. Please don't create a WP:TALKFORK here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 09:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 20:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Help talk:IPA/Italian
Nardog (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by signed,Rosguill talk 19:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography
The RfC was to make a minor edit to a paragraph and add a clarifying second paragraph. There's a clear consensus for the minor change to the first paragraph, and a reasonably clear consensus to add some version of the proposed second paragraph, but I'm not sure if there is a consensus on which of the proposed phrasings of the second paragraph to use, and so I would like an uninvolved editor to make some decision on that point and close the RfC. Loki (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by signed,Rosguill talk 19:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 310
Formal close requested for RfC re-evaluating Quillette magazine, for which 37 editors responded and WP:RSOPINION was associated. This RfC sprung from a WP:RSN discussion created on 9 August 2020. Please see Perennial sources#Quillette where source is currently tagged as "Generally unreliable". Thank you. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 11:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Just want to point out that on my count the majority of editors still consider it generally unreliable
 * depreciate=12
 * unreliable=23
 * considerations apply=15
 * Reliable=1
 * with some of those being split or mixed votes and the repeat publishing of falsehoods and pseudoscience being demonstrated. the subjects use as WP:RSOPINION is contested in the discussion. If the closer reads the debate they will see it was pointed out by other editors that they are not reliable and have published hoax opinion without identifying the author in the past, I think their reliability for opinion has been contested and this should be taken into consideration. Bacondrum (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be wiser if you refrained from trying to taint the closure with your opinion. You have a lot to say, this is obvious, but the closer will have the intelligence to see the totality and substance of comments. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 11:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What happened here? The RFC got archived while it was still undecided and now nobody can participate in it or close it because it is on a static archive page? That shouldn't happen, right? If so, where do we go with this? Unarchive it? (If so, is there time for me to sneak a final !vote for option 4 in before it gets closed? ;-) ) Or just close it? --DanielRigal (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Archiving bots cannot tell if a discussion is still undecided. They operate purely on the age of the most recent post to the thread concerned; at WP:RSN, threads are eligible for archiving after five days of inactivity. You could cut (not copy) the thread concerned from the archive and paste it back into the main talk page, but make sure that you make a comment in the thread before lowercase sigmabot III visits again, otherwise it'll simply be re-archived. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It can still be closed. That's why it was listed here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 19:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War
Should be closed by an uninvolved experienced editor. Orientls (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by signed,Rosguill talk 19:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at ? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   02:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think closure at that RSN discussion also relates to closure of this discussion at the spam blacklist noticeboard. Jlevi (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , and raising at WP:Discussions for discussion due to the issue's complexity. signed,Rosguill talk 21:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 17:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch
the vote result has already been reached --Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done, consensus is clear barring one belligerent editor who has already been blocked for their troubles. The page has already been updated to reflect the discussion outcome. signed,Rosguill talk 21:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Hindu_Kush
This has been open for over a month and I'm requesting that someone close it. The administrator who closes this should be aware that some SPAs were created shortly after the RfC was open to !Vote "Support". --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Violence
Needs to be assessed regarding two questions. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 18:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 170
A small discussion, but hosted at VPR with notifications given to the relevant pages and unanimous support among !voters, so it should hopefully be actionable if someone is willing to give it a formal closing. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done. Too little participation to make a change to a project-wide practice of such longstanding. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sack Trick
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion, which has been relisted three times already? --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done. Third relists only a couple days ago. It'll pop-up for closure in due course with perhaps some clarity as to consensus with some more participation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, per WP:RELIST,
 * "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure"
 * "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors"
 * "in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice", and
 * "Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the relist template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient"
 * This discussion has going on for over one month with many editors, and no justification has been provided for a third relist. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , those are the guidelines about relisting, yes. And still my comment stands. If you have an issue with the third relist I suggest you take it up with . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  Reply - The third relist is now over one week old, which IMHO, means that the discussion is ready for closure. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sharman DiVono
 Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 19:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done by .  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 15:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Level-5 Comcept
As an involved editor, would like this merge discussion to be formally closed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 20:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌: I just carried out the merger and it was reverted by a sysop. I guess it's back in your hands now.  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 04:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With such a small discussion, which was unanimous at the time of being listed here, this really shouldn't have been listed here in the first place. At this point, the discussion can be considered ongoing, and this request can be safely archived. signed,Rosguill talk 19:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Template talk:Cfdnotice
Could an editor or administrator versed with closing move discussions please close this one? It has been open for almost three months, and there have been no comments added to the discussion in over a month. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done, having read through the discussion in question, it's not clear what proposed changes are suggested by any participant in the discussion, and the article appears to have changed significantly since the dispute was first raised. The discussion is further disjointed, with 2 comments made 3 months ago, 3 made 1 month ago, and 1 made 11 days ago. signed,Rosguill talk 21:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Articuno
Would like there to be a formal end to this proposed move as there seems to be a clear consensus.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 21:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Anglo-French_War_(1778–1783)
The discussion has been open since July and has bled into several other sections on the talk page. Good luck. -- Calidum 16:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 20:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Music/Archive 39
A consensus appears to have been reached, but request that an uninvolved editor review it. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood the editors' intentions.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 19:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:United_Kingdom_Internal_Market_Bill
Requesting closure of the merge discussion please. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * done by Hebsen. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No close needed so Not done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Kenosha_unrest
Should this discussion be closed as synonymous to Talk:Kenosha_unrest? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  Comment - The discussion is now over one week old. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football
No consensus has yet been reached. 1 is the status quo (2+3 votes, depending on variation), the most voted options are 3 (11 votes) and 7 (9 votes), while 7 (2 times) and 1 (2+1 times) have been opposed. Really, the options are 3 and 7, with 1 being the status quo. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 21:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Kiki Camarena
Seven votes/contributions were offered in the first week of the RfC. Another two weeks have passed with no additional comments provided. A close would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC) done—S Marshall T/C 00:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging once more on this issue. -Darouet (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * since you've been active here recently - sorry for the ping! -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ,I don't have time to look now but a couple general words. First per WP:RFCEND no formal close might be necessary. Second, if a formal close is necessary you'll see that there are a few RfCs older than yours. When considering what to close the age of the discussion is one consideration I use. So, and I know this is hard when I find myself in a disagreement, please be patient. Someone will get to you (if indeed it's actually necessary). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sack Trick
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion, whose third relist was over one week ago? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done by Barkeep49 (talk) at 01:13 on 17 October 2020 (UTC).  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 04:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 172
Could an experienced Wikipedian please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 19:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The newly-closed discussion about deindexing can now be found at Village pump (proposals). EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Jeffrey_Epstein
RFC has ended. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done.—S Marshall T/C 10:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Kenosha_protests
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * second the RfC.  xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, what do you mean? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It means, I support and endorse what you said. just like "+1", but more formal. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Bump. Still waiting for a Closure, help is still needed. xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Done, although I left open the bottom part of the section where there's discussion of the draft underway. signed,Rosguill talk 20:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Arameans
Seems to have run its (long-winded) course. Consensus in it may actually be pretty clear despite the verbiage; it'll just be a bit of a tedious read. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 21:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

HuffPost RfC
Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313

This discussion was archived without closure. 192.76.8.89 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Tommy_Robinson_(activist)
Please would an uninvolved person please bring a formal end to this RFC. Thank you. Tyrroi (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done by Buidhe.—S Marshall T/C 10:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education
This was an extended RfC discussion where neither of the two most obvious choices gained a clear consensus. There was fairly promising discussion of a compromise option as the RfC progressed, but discussion died down and has been inactive for nearly two months now. Since the initial discussion was so contentious, and since there was already a related RfC closed with no consensus several months ago, it seems like it would be for the best if an uninvolved editor closed this one. Thank you! --Drevolt (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 19:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 United States racial reckoning
Closure is requested of this discussion. (It was an RfC.) Crossroads -talk- 16:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarification, the RfC tag was only up for a week so can hardly be called that. The original discussion was malformed and happened on both talk pages without being listed elsewhere for broader participation. czar  17:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That other discussion is mentioned and linked at this discussion, so that it is considered. There are plenty of comments at these discussions, many of them from during that RfC time, so there was wide participation, and I believe that the consensus is clear. I see no reason not to list this here and get it closed after how long altogether it has been. Crossroads -talk- 20:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * RfCs typically are listed for longer, hence my clarification on that point alone. czar  05:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Its 15 to 7 in favor of merging on the talk page with little new discussion. Unaware of this Rfc, I had previously moved the relevant material into the new page. Juno (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 20:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Casey Calvert (actress) (2nd nomination)
 Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 13:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done BD2412  T 18:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive325
Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus of this close review? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 19:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Some urgency in deciding this one way or another would seem in order, as the person (Theresa Greenfield) is running as candidate in an election. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done – The actionable portion of the discussion relating directly to Theresa Greenfield has already been closed by . There's some additional discussion about related cases that I do not think would be appropriate to close at this time. signed,Rosguill talk 20:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 United States presidential election
When appropriate, would an uninvolved editor please close this RFC?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 17:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Philophrosyne (moon)
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --OrderOftheNerds (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done, small discussion with essentially unanimous consensus on the talk page, doesn't need formal closure. signed,Rosguill talk 16:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Margot (activist)
One aspect is how should her gender identity be reported. A second question is to either amending or removing the ‘Name controversy’ section. Editing on the article has quieted after one user was indef blocked.  Glee anon 17:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done -- The SandDoctor Talk 04:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics
Seems to be a clear consensus to me, but closure was disputed. -- Beland (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:George Floyd protests in California
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done -- The SandDoctor Talk 04:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2020
Archived without formal closure, but as with anything involving infoboxes (or religion, much less both at once), it should probably get a clear assessment. My rede is that options 1, 2, and 4 passed, and the rest did not. But I !voted, so I'm not in a position to write a close, and it would be better if an admin did it anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 18:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Daily_Mail
-sche (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 11:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:China
Please bring a end to this RFC. The discussion is about adding Mainland China on the PRC page. Thank you. -- 芄蘭 (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Kenosha unrest
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't list discussions here requesting their close unless they have been opened for at least a month (30 days) and ideally (though not a hard requirement) commenting has slowed. -- The SandDoctor Talk 04:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * nd nothing a closer can do with that now-archived sub-section. A wider discussion is taking place on the main talk. Once that is over (per SandDoctor above) it may be worth requesting closure on that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Long_jump_world_record_progression
Just a few participants with an outcome that is unclear. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done: Discussion closed as no merger.  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 16:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 84
Archived without formal closure, but received a great deal of input, and should be closed, or the disputes about the subject will continue. It consists of two essentially competing proposals. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just been through that whole discussion and I can't discern any consensus at all. I left it unclosed because a "no consensus" close won't do anything to stop the disputes you mention, and someone else might want to try.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As with other RfCs that are basically a !voting exercise tacked onto the end of longer discussions, this one will probably need to be examined in the context of the threads that led up to it (I think the main one is also at NPOVN). From what I recall of this one, the policy arguments are very clear, versus some royalty wikiproject grousing that probably amounts to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:CONLEVEL issues, though I might have missed something. I haven't looked at it in months (but participated heavily at the time, so I'm involved). The overall gist is whether it is OR to extrapolate from what nobility title someone would have had if the title had not been abolished, and calling that person by that title in articles on WP (when the person doesn't make any such claim, and RS don't do it either).  The answer seems pretty clear, though there's a lot of verbiage to wade through.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed with a rough consensus that titles in pretense should not be generally used in article titles, infoboxes, etc. unless its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources demonstrates that a specific person is commonly named as such. (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:


 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib)

Talk:Douma_chemical_attack
Last comment was on 8 August so I think we are ready for closure. There has been significant input from editors. Burrobert (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Closed with no consensus to include the proposed material.  (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:


 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 17:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
Most people support a move of the article, and the least controversial and safest move for now is "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war". However, I am not 100% sure if what is happening on that talk page can be considered as a consensus or not, so I would like an administrator to read the discussion and determine if it is appropriate to close the request. Super  Ψ   Dro  15:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done by Wug. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_18
I suspect that the consensus is to delete, but I'm not 100% sure. My only participation has been tagging an unsigned comment. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 20:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  15:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_3
I think this should be closed as Keep. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 20:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_17
All participants have voted to keep and purge the subcategories. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 20:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  00:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_18
Apparent consensus is to merge to the parent category. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 20:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmodea Oaktree (talk • contribs) 15:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_22
There is consensus to rename the category. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  00:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_24
Consensus is most probably to merge. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  00:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 25
I am requesting an early closure to this discussion given how it has devolved into borderline disruptive editing. There appears to be a clear consensus against a merger and an admin should judge for themselves of the conduct. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is due for closure tomorrow anyway. I don't see how any of the speedy criteria are met to do it any earlier. If conduct is an issue, WP:ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  00:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020 November 5
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Relisted by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2020 October 25
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by T. Canens (talk) at 14:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC).  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 00:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election
Could someone please review Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election? Almost been a week, and one of the options has already gone past its deadline. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 23
Archived without formal closure, but received sufficient input to assess consensus. Anything involving infoboxes should get a closure, or disputes will continue forever. This one will be easy: it has a 10:7 (or 11:7, counting nom) headcount in favor of option B over option A, but option B is the only possible result anyway, since MOS:JOBTITLES is crystal clear on this, offsite sources mostly agree with our usage, and no WP:IAR case or other cause for an exception has been made, just a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, although I note that my reading of the discussion's outcome differs from the summary above. signed,Rosguill talk 23:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Proud Boys
I feel as though the census is quite clear here, but since it's about the Proud Boys and has had a lot of very significant controversy, I feel as though a formal closure is the best course of action to avoid adding fuel to the fire. The !voting died out after a week, and there's really been no reasonable discussion (beyond what is just bickering over sources despite the clear common terms) since around then too. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_24
I believe the consensus is to merge into The Thirteen Colonies tree. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_25
Consensus to rename. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:House of Commons
Discussion has lasted nearly a month and opposition is unanimous. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_30
There is consensus to rename. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by Bibliomaniac15. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Kyiv
It has been more than 30 days, and no one has closed this RfC. I hope someone here can take a look. Thank you, RGloucester  — ☎ 17:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by .  starship .paint  (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
This has been going for 40+ days with plenty of inputs; more or less petered out but keeps sputtering back to life with individual comments, which probably could go on indefinitely. Formal closure & summary would be appreciated. There are strong opinions on both ends of the spectrum so likely to be contentious. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * concur this needs a close. Suggest a group of three admins - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems the !votes are still coming in and, as you may have heard lately, we really should count every vote. Maybe wait until !voting has definitely died down? FOARP (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion does not seem to exist. Primefac (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The thread concerned was archived normally by lowercase sigmabot III . It was then unarchived by . Then it was removed from RSN by, at  without being returned to the archive, reinstated by Guest2625 at  and removed again by Buidhe at . Both removals by Buidhe claim that the thread was "archived", but I can find no evidence of where they pasted the cut content to. So, it's in limbo. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's now been to the main page again. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just posted a note to Administrators'_noticeboard asking for three brave admins - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Copying my comment from that noticeboard: Having no particular impression of the source one way or the other, and no involvement in the discussion, I'll volunteer for a panel. BD2412  T 23:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done Per the response at ANI, I have made a solo close of the discussion. BD2412  T 01:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_26
There is consensus to merge, subject to a couple of exceptions. This is the last remaining CFD of Category:Categories for discussion from July 2020. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by user:Good Olfactory – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic
There's already been one attempt to close this, which was overturned following an AN discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 23:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The conflict lasted since 14 may 2020. I reverted two more time. And then compromised for the image without text. Which was also reverted. I then stopped the edit war and still waiting for a consensus while the image and the controversial text is enforced in the page. Thanks for having a look at it. Iluvalar (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Iluvalar is topic banned from Covid-19 under general sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed after re-analysis with a clear preponderance to Option #3 among those arguments that were policy-compliant. (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:


 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309
Been archived for a while, a large number of contributors so it would be great if it got a proper close. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done Unarchived and closed with a clear consensus in favor of Option #1 but a rough consensus that additional considerations apply at some higher rate than "normal". (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:


 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 05:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Adam in Islam
Could an experienced editor analyse and close this discussion? ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? RfCs normally run for thirty days. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think the consensus is clear in that RfC about including the statement, and there is no issue in closing RfCs early, unless they're a bit more controversial that it takes time to reach any final point? I guess, I have not misread, The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 15 September 2020); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion. Anyways, it is fine if you want it to be open for a month or more. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC is already 30 days old now, and I don't see any substantial participation in it since I posted the closure request here. Maybe someone can assess the discussion and close it now? Thanks ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , please be patient. There are eight requests older than yours and there is WP:NODEADLINE. It will be looked at in time. [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:


 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 22:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm reading the discussion and will be closing it shortly.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 03:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done Discussion closed.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 03:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Nick Cordero
Started over a month ago and nobody has contributed in over 9 days. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 02:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done looks like took care of this - David Gerard (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Could an uninvolved editor or administrator close this policy RfC, which has run its course? Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done - David Gerard (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
RFC on deprecation of a source. Looking like a WP:SNOW, but waited until 7 days were up. Could someone please do the honours? - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done Snowball clause close per multiple request within the thread and the above. Clear consensus that  Newsmax is at least "generally unreliable" and moderately-clear consensus that therefore Newsmax should be deprecated as a source. (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:


 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 14:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 31
This CfD has been relisted, yet there has not been a single reply to it since 8 October 2020. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 15:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  13:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Koala
No new comments for the last month, but plenty of clear expressions of preference. It's not one of these "triplet of admins please" RFCs, but some uninvolved editor needs to put the beast to bed now. I'm involved or I'd close it down myself. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed with a rough consensus to include "koala bear" in the lead with some form of indication that "bear" is biologically inexact. (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:


 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Indian subcontinent
This needs a closure, with a note about if there is a consensus (and if there is, then what is the consensus). The bot has already removed the RfC template. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 02:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC expired over a week ago. No one interested to close? Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 02:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * More than two weeks now. Is there no one interested to close this? Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 00:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I remember recieving strong rebuke for posting "invalid RfC" and "malformed RfC" in hours after posting the RfC. But, after dozens of editors including many long standing admins taking part in it... no one is interested to close it, not even as no consensus. It's been more than three weeks. Interesting. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 21:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Aditya: you can see that there are a number of even older RfCs that have yet to be closed. I know it's frustrating to have waited three weeks after the length of the time of an RfC but, unfortunately, that's just the way some issues go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't mind waiting. But waiting with a feeling that this might never bear any fruit is what frustrates me. The dispute was already going for two months before the RfC, and had been going on and off for years. As far as I can see it takes much less time to make a real human baby than to resolve a dispute on the Wikipedia 😂. Thanks for the kind response. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 19:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus on the inclusion of Afghanistan and Myanmar in the lead's definition and no consideration of the other issues raised. (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:


 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 21:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Move_review/Log/2020_September
There was an attempt to close this discussion, which was overturned at AN in favor of letting the discussion run longer. Discussion has since died down, so it's time for a close. signed,Rosguill talk 16:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done by Wugapodes. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Greenwashing
Would an uninvolved editor please close the previously vigorous but now stale discussion regarding a merge of Greenscamming into Greenwashing. Klbrain (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Merge actioned by Klbrain. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Helena (empress)
I need an uninvolved editor to assess and, if possible, close this. Current voting stands at 3 in favor of the move, 1 against, and 1 with objections. Neither the opposing nor objecting voices have properly addressed any of the rationales presented, and the former at one point undermined his own argument by recognizing that the the current page title could apply to many people. Avis11 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by BD2412  T at 03:17 on 21 November 2020 (UTC).  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 22:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Infinity Train
requesting closure on a move discussion. There seems to be a consensus, but I think it may need a double check to confirm this. Alex Tenshi (talk&#124;contribs) 03:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 22:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies
Less likely to form clear agreement. As author of article and initiator of RfC I am personally for  moving on towards  AfD discussion to seek clear community opinion, but  may be experienced user might want to suggest any other method of dispute resolution, merge or move discussion or AfD discussion itself. Thanks.Bookku (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * done Closed with a consensus to rename the article. (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:


 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 22:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318
This was a long-drawn-out RfC that had thorough discussions and quite a few contributors. It would be great if it got a proper closure by an uninvolved administrator or editor.Magnus Dominus (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Rochester shooting
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Kenosha unrest
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 United States presidential election
Requesting uninvolved, experienced editor to assess how to stylize references to the current U.S. president at this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:History_of_Iran
It seems like there is a consensus in that discussion. --Delasse (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election/Archive 20
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Albert Kesselring/1
this is a malformed GAR which was initiated by a user who made some broad sweeping comments without specifics and after a personal attack by them on the principal contributor, no longer wishes to participate. I would close it but I've commented. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia
There is also related discussion at talk:Kyiv. —Michael Z. 19:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Cracker (term)
This RfC had multiple outcomes to select from and many editors selected more than one option. Would like a more experienced editor to determine consensus.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 17:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Andy Ngo
Would appreciate a quick hand closing this. Thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
Requesting an experience editor or admin to close this please. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Should be done by an experienced admin. The page and the RFC has backgrounds that need to be followed before closure. -- M h hossein   talk 07:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Internment
Consensus in this RfC will not be difficult for an uninvolved editor to assess, however formal closure is necessary due to refusal on the part of some editors to drop the stick. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Could an uninvolved editor close this please? Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Chetsford (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Could an uninvolved editor close this RfC? Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Rash
An uninvolved editor is appreciated; thanks. George Ho (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DONE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetsford (talk • contribs) 08:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Template talk:Falsification of history
Consensus should be easy to evaluate, but a formal close was requested. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 28
Is there consensus against the proposal, or should it be relisted per the last comment? –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  15:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:French Revolution
Could an uninvolved experienced editor please review Talk:French Revolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Gotse Delchev
I need another opinion on this discussion, a few editors believe that this article is written like a personal essay despite having over 210 sources and multiple references. It is related to the current dispute of North Macedonia and Bulgaria over the identity of this hero (read more here https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/revolutionary-heros-identity-stands-in-the-way-of-skopjes-eu-path/), I do not think some editors that support the addition of these tags are doing so in good faith but instead they are Tag bombinb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tag bombing) --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a page for requesting closure, not for anoother opinion. Please, see WP:thirdopinion to request another opinion.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done Marking this "Done" in the initiated template simply to remove it from this list. As pointed out immediately above, this is not a close request but a request for a third opinion, which is inappropriate for this page. The discussion referenced has no definite proposal or point upon which a consensus could be determined but is a regular talk page discussion.  Per WP:CLOSE, this type of discussion does not need a closing statement and the only likely close would be "no consensus," which hardly helps.  A properly-formatted RfC may bring future clarity to the issues raised. See WP:RFCBRIEF and Writing requests for comment for assistance.  [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:


 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Nana (2020)
Clear consensus against a merge. Was closed, but user simply removed vote. I edited on 67.85.37.186 and therefore can't close it myself. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Close as not merged. Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 21:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Big Four (tennis)
Can someone neutral (doesn't need to be an admin) close this?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC) done AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of My Hero Academia characters
The RFC header was removed by Legobot as expired a few days ago, but could an uninvolved experienced editor review it to state whether there was a consensus? Everybody who voted at the RFC voted to include the content, but only 4 users officially voted. However there were significant edits from 3 other users related to the RFC before it started and after it ended. Serial Number 54129 has persistently edited the content out but has been inactive since a little bit after the RFC started, Drmies has edited the content out at one point but has not done so since despite being well aware that the content was restored ever since multiple secondary sources were added to the article per his advice on my talk page and has privately thanked me for doing so, and Exukvera has edited the content back in at least twice but has not contributed to any discussion despite being pinged. Thanks to whoever reviews this. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * this is one of the way that RfCs end. In this case I'm not sure you need a formal close so much as Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , so, because all participants in the RFC have agreed, and one opposing user from the dispute has kept the article the way it was when the content was restored, does that mean the RFC succeeded? A formal close on the article talk page would still help, as I am worried about the other opposing user reverting again upon their return, as they have reverted despite an existing consensus in the past. I see you are an administrator with 15 years' experience; am I allowed to ask you to give this RFC a formal close? Thank you in advance. Unnamed anon (talk)|
 * , not only administrators can close RfCs. I think I closed more RfCs before I was an administrator than since. I suggest you add a comment saying what it is you plan to do. Leave it a week or so. If no one objects implement it. If another editor comes back later and raises a fuss you can point to that discussion and this as why you did it. It is an alternative to waiting here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What I plan to implement was already present by the time the RFC started, has been like that since, and still is; the reason it started was because it was being persistently reverted every month, and what I hope to gain from somebody closing the RFC is for confirmation if it can stay that way as evidence in case the other editor thinks about editing it out again or as evidence against me to revert it back to their version. The other editor has reverted against a consensus in January on this page before, but said January consensus only involved two other users besides me, and had no RFC template. This is why I started an RFC, despite the content I had proposed already being present by the time it started; to gain confirmation on whether or not it should be kept as is. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand. I am more suggesting "I plan in a week to implement the consensus above" can be helpful in reducing conflict later one. Either no one objects and you can point to this in the future or someone does object and you know where things stand (perhaps indeed needing to wait for a formal close). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this what you want me to comment at the top? Sorry, I'm a bit confused about what you're saying, as the content was already there by the time the RFC started, and the reason for it was to keep it that way due to persistent reversions that only stopped due to the other editor going inactive. Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to say there is no need for a formal close because multiple editors have agreed to its implementation, but that's kind of the reason I'm asking for a formal close; to make it extremely obvious to the opposing party if there is a consensus, so as to prevent another series of monthly disruption. I do not want to experience monthly disruption on this page again, regardless of what the outcome of the RFC is, and a formal close with any outcome, even those that I do not hope for, will let me know what happens next. If there is a consensus, then we know that whoever is against the consensus will be forced to discuss their edits instead of persistently reverting, and if there is no consensus, then I know to start another RFC to get more input if only if the disruption happens again. I am aware that Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion., and that the discussion has had all of its votes in favor of keeping the content, as well as one opposing user not reverting since the restoration of the content and privately thanking me for trying to reach a compromise, but due to the the other opposing and currently inactive user's seeming assumptions that I operate under bad faith, I feel like the closure will only be valid if an uninvolved editor reviews it, no matter how clear you or I believe the outcome is. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * done &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Project Veritas
A formal close would be helpful here, since this is a perennial discussion on the article talk page. The discussion has been open for more than 30 days, and there have been no new votes since November 17. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * done O3000 (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Orbs (band)
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion, which has now been relisted thrice? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done Discussion was . &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Vivian (Paper Mario)
A discussion about whether or not the article should be merged went down. However, there are multiple opinions.
 * Keep the article
 * Merge the article
 * Keep the article, but demote from GA status

A very rough consensus seems to be keep. I would like an administrator to close this mess that's been inactive for quite a while. Le Panini Talk 15:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
This has gone on way long enough, and lack of a formal resolution is simply leading to WP:TALKFORKs of this debate at article talk pages. I think the consensus is pretty easy to determine (especially since a policy is involved), but !votes will need to be read carefully, as some people are responding with clear do this not that posts, while others are more vaguely saying support or oppose (there are at least three, not two, options, so exactly what they mean will be inside the rest of their comment). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 21:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft_talk:Shift4 Payments
Requesting an experienced editor or admin to close this please and bring the article live if this is the consensus, as it appears to be, Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 17:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Move_review
It's been open two months and very discussion has taken place of late. -- Calidum 18:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * done by No such user (talk) at 14:13 on 9 December 2020 (UTC).  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 23:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:West Bank bantustans
This discussion over changing a highly controversial title for an article has gone on for over a week and seems to be petering out with no consensus. What's more, even most of those supporting the move aren't thrilled with the proposal, they just think it's better than the current one, and some people who hate the article's current name voted against changing it because they think this particular proposal is worse. After talking it over some with editors who voted in favor of keeping it, we've concluded that this discussion should be closed so we can consider a new potential proposed title.--RM (Be my friend) 23:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * done.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:New_York_Post
A formal close would be helpful here. The discussion has been open for more than 30 days, and there have been no new votes since November 10. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * done.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 15:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Nicole Maines
Looking for an admin or experienced editor to close this RFC and determine what the consensus is if there is any. This is my first time using this page, apologies if this request has any formatting issues. Rab V (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch
Seems meet deadlock cause 1 editor being tiresome and tendentious so the issue is a contentious one although the vote result has already been reached --Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This had no RfC tag until today, and consequently had no comments other than three by people already active in the dispute that led up to it. I have reset the timer on this one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done, no closure needed, the primary dissent from the status quo was an editor who has since been indef blocked for their efforts. A compromise proposal made by an uninvolved editor did not gain any traction. As the discussion was already archived, I see no reason to revive it. signed,Rosguill talk 20:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Orbs (band)
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion, which has now been relisted thrice? WP:RELIST states that "debates should not be relisted more than twice". This section should be left here until such time that the AFD is closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by signed,Rosguill talk 20:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
Started as an RfC, but RfC tag removed after complaints of non-neutral heading and presentation. Considerable discussion nevertheless ensued, and a consensus can likely be assessed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by signed,Rosguill talk 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20_Hong_Kong_protests
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 20:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Requesting an uninvolved administrator assessment of consensus here. Thanks, Neutralitytalk 02:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been sitting pinned at the top of the Trump talk page for more than a month now. I endorse the request for a close and urge that it be prioritized. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 20:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Democratic Progressive Party
Requesting that an uninvolved editor close this RfC. It has been stale for over a month, but it seems to still be interpreted as unresolved in a follow-up discussion. — MarkH21talk 20:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by signed,Rosguill talk 20:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War
This evidently ended in a consensus. But the dispute has been going for years, espcially pitched in the last three months. This discussion came at the heel of two other back to back discussions (the first one started 1 August) and at least two dozen reverts by almost dozen editors, all part of the same dispute. It will be really helpful if we had a formal closure with a clear indication of the outcome. That would help to keep peace in future disputes, which, looking at the article and talk histoy, potentially can start/re-start any day. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 20:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Hunter Biden
Requesting closure per WP:SNOW. The only !votes of support are the proposer, and an account that has been trying to push WP:OR/conspiracy-theory stuff about "the diamond". IHateAccounts (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * not done RfC has been open for three days with 17 !votes, of which 10 are no, 4 are yes, and 3 are "yes but not as written." Of course we don't decide RfCs based on !votes, but on argument. However, a cursory headcount is reasonable to determine if the extraordinary standards of a SNOW close are likely to be met. And they are not. In all probability this will ultimately close as "no", but the likelihood it will end up unanimous, near-unanimous, or could be closed early without any reasonable objections being raised (our SNOW tests), is virtually impossible. Chetsford (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk: Interstate 90
Resolved, consensus was to remove I-77 entirely per the 10 jct rule, which it was. Just need a formal closure along the lines of, I-77 was removed entirely. --Hurricane Tracker 495 00:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * not done How can this be resolved after less than one hour of discussion involving only four people? If it really is resolved to everybody's satisfaction, you don't need to come here to ask for closure, see the yellow pool ball at the top. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2020 October
Please come and close this move review.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 20:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:TikTok
Can someone please evaluate the consensus at Talk:TikTok, as the discussion is almost two months old and has mostly petered out? The numbers are close, but there are questions of precedent and strength of argument too. Thank you, Bkenny44 (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done, RfC was relisted 26 days ago and is still seeing active participation. signed,Rosguill talk 19:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Chad_Wolf
Interest in this one appears to have died down, so I'm requesting formal closure on a somewhat controversial AP2 topic. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * DONE Chetsford (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
I have to say it this way to properly explain: I am listing this here because of what is going on in the last subsection of this section. There was an RfC at the Village Pump about this matter which rejected the proposal developed over the preceding subsections. In the last subsection (which was never itself an RfC despite the heading; it merely linked to the RfC) there seems to be an attempt by the main proponent to re-litigate/question the RfC contrary to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:IDHT. Crossroads -talk- 05:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done, I don't think there's any danger of LOCALCONSENSUS decisions being used to supersede the broader discussion. If the main proponent picks up the stick again in the event that their (unrelated, I believe) unblock request is accepted, I'll consider asking them to disengage. signed,Rosguill talk 19:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2020 October
Please come and close this move review.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 19:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Tyson_Foods
It's been over a month since this was opened and there's been a lot of responses. I think the outcome is reasonably clear, but given the acrimony it would be best to have a formal closure. --Aquillion (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * done signed,Rosguill talk 19:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Kowloon Bay
A stale split discussion. Matthew hk (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 19:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles
Consensus seems fairly clear, but lack of a formal closure on this one has resulted in the issue being (very unclearly) rehashed at "Village pump (policy)", so this would clearly benefit from a written close. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 21:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 174
Could an experienced editor please assess consensus at this design-related discussion? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done, outcome is fairly self evident with support outnumbering oppose 2-to-1, and essentially all arguments being rooted in personal opinions about whether or not a redesign is worth the effort. With that in mind, I'd say that editors interested in taking on this work have a mandate to do so, but don't see a point in de-archiving and formally closing the discussion. Courtesy ping to signed,Rosguill talk 21:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran
Requesting an experienced editor or admin to close this please (some editors in these discussions have a history of challenging the close, so a bit of 'thick skin' may be required). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion is still ongoing, so I would urge until discussion has finished to close the RfC. Remember, wikipedia has no WP:Deadline.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 05:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done, discussion has been ongoing for several weeks since this was listed here. If editors feel that a third party is needed to keep the discussion from spiraling in circles, feel free to relist, but without a request for that sort of intervention I don't think it would be appropriate to intervene at this time. signed,Rosguill talk 20:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Parler
Looking for an admin to evaluate consensus and close this discussion. There has been some sock activity/possible canvassing so probably best for a fairly experienced admin to do this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by buidhe. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools
It's been over a month since this was opened and there was a lot of engagement, so I would kindly ask an administrator to formally close the RfC and put an end to the discussion. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 21:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 United States presidential election
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done, at a glance seems like no consensus. Given the time-sensitive nature of many of the arguments, I doubt it's worth the effort to attempt to tease out anything more than that. signed,Rosguill talk 21:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been closed and archived, although the close is unsigned. In any case, it is now moot. BD2412  T 18:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done for bot. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 18:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Files for discussion/2020 December 8
[or if you can count prior nomination(s)] – For six (or seven) months the cover arts of NSYNC songs have been nominated, deleted but then undeleted per deletion review, re-nominated, and then relisted a few or several more times. As of date, there have been no newer votes since early October, even with the relisting two weeks ago. I wonder how long we must await a newer vote. If one admin isn't enough, then how about two admins teaming up together to write the consensus rationale ? George Ho (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC); edited, 01:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by an admin. --George Ho (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London
I originally posted on the Teahouse, but somebody there told me this is the official place to create such requests. We have had an extensive discussion.

As I pointed out many times there, I am trying to restore articles to previous guidelines and consensus. As you know, an RFC is best closed by an uninvolved editor. We just need someone to have a quick sift through the archives to find this previously agreed guidelines / consensus and then this can be formally closed. I took the liberty to find the relevant archives and I will paste them below here to read:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London/Archive_10 Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) WikiProject_London/Naming_conventions Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London/Archive_8 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London/Archive_4

I would really appreciate it if someone could do this. Thank you :) Justgravy (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by signed,Rosguill talk 21:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Nuclear Power Plants Authority
This has been relisted twice and is almost on its seventh day with the second relist. It's probably getting close to that time... jp×g 22:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 21:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? &#8213; Ætoms  [talk] 23:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by  signed,Rosguill talk 21:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:TikTok
Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus in this discussion? The sentiment isn't overly divided, but the way it played out made it fairly messy, and since it concerns the lead of a high-traffic page and was started by a paid editor I think it should get a formal close. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight
Could an uninvolved editor close this RfC? No votes since November 16. Thank you.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2021 United States elections
We meed an official closure of this expired RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Sidney Powell
Could an editor please review consensus at this discussion? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Time_series_database
long overdue, RfC on inclusion standards for a specific list, and edit requests keep popping up which seem to fail the outcome of the RfC. Better to formalize the outcome and maybe clarify the wording in the article according to outcome of RfC. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by signed,Rosguill talk 21:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
We need an administrator to close this expired RFC. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 10:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 22:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources
I'd like an administrator or an experienced editor to review this discussion and assess the consensus about the use of primary sources in addition to secondary sources. Thank you in advance. KyleJoan talk 02:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 20:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran
Requesting an experienced editor or admin to close this please (some editors in these discussions have a history of challenging the close, so a bit of 'thick skin' may be required). Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Closed with no consensus to remove the disputed text. (non-admin closure) [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:


 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 20:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Washington_Football_Team
RfC about the use of plural/singular verbs for "Washington Football Team"; discussion approaching 30 days with last unique contributor a week ago. –Zfish118⋉talk 02:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Already done by - Ryk72 talk 05:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Sha Tin New Town
It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could assess the merge/rewrite proposal at Talk:Sha Tin New Town. Matthew hk (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:NRC Handelsblad
It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could assess the merge proposal for some Dutch newspapers at Talk:NRC Handelsblad. Klbrain (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Sha Tin
It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could assess the merge/rewrite proposal at Talk:Sha Tin. Matthew hk (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos
I am the editor who opened this RfC, due to feedback from multiple editors,I was told I should make a new more clearer RfC. I agreed.Bigbaby23 (talk)
 * done.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 03:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   23:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Israel
Could an experienced editor please close this discussion? It seems the result is pretty clear, and it has been going on for two months already. Also this tag should be removed from lede.--Watchlonly (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Swastika
A controversial topic merger that I think needs a closure. The last edit from a registered user was from 19 December 2020, It seems that the result is pretty clear as only one editor presented an argument about disagreeing with the merge, and it has been inactive for quite a while now except from a comment by an unregistered IP recently. PyroFloe (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done —valereee (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Newsmax
RFC proposing merger of Newsmax Media to Newsmax due to redundancy. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dream (YouTuber) (2nd nomination)
Please close this discussion. It has been going on for quite a while, and the consensus is very unclear. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 12:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It has already been closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done by . ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Already done for bot. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar
It would be helpful if an experienced editor could assess the merge proposal for Fatwa of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad on ISIS into Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. Klbrain (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Pontius Pilate
Would appreciate if someone uninvolved could assess and close this. Avilich (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 19:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Mike DeWine
Not a difficult one, but probably needs a formal close for other reasons. —valereee (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review
I believe this discussion has run its course and there is rough consensus. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done. Mz7 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:LNU Lightning Complex fires
This discussion has essentially died out. There appears to be some level of consensus for merging Hennessey Fire into LNU Lightning Complex fires, in keeping with the standard practice on the Wildfires WikiProject. See the talk page discussion for more details.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by signed,Rosguill talk 18:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2020 November
– ask that this be closed as soon as possible.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done by signed,Rosguill talk 19:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Turks in Germany
Hi, requesting an experienced editor/moderator to review this very contentious and accusational discussion. Will Tyson for real (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This seems to mostly be a discussion between 2 people. Not much a closer can do here, suggest WP:DR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done, discussion is ongoing, and as ProcrastinatingReader notes this is more of a case for dispute resolution between a small number of editors rather than a discussion that needs evaluation for closing. signed,Rosguill talk 19:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:COSCO Shipping
Need an uninvolved editor to close the merge discussion of non-notable private (subsidiary) company. Matthew hk (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians
This merger discussion has been going on for quite a while, but was never closed. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 13:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Parga/Archive 1
A contested topic which needs a formal close, but the close looks easy. The last non-bot edit was 19 December 2020. Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Close by . Sdrqaz (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli
Please close this AfD discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * close by . Sdrqaz (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Lauren Southern
Fairly clear consensus, but there has been some off-wiki attention on this descriptor (including from Southern herself, as well as in publications including Breitbart), and so a formal close would probably be valuable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , would you be happy for me to perform a non-admin closure? Consensus seems pretty clear to me. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, non-admin close is just fine with me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Opened to determine status of source, because a previous discussion had not been an "official" RFC and thus could not officially deprecate. It has not run a full 30 days but I am ok with someone looking at it for closure. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war
JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 16:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Reviewing... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Near-unanimous WP:SNOW right from the start (and rehash of many previous discussions, especially at WT:MOSWTW). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  03:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Files for discussion/2020 October 5
There has been inconclusive discussion of the copyright status of this image at least since April 2020, current FFD on 5 October 2020 Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This FFD was not opened on 5 October 2020 but on 24 April 2020, it has been relisted twice. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  22:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Mary-Kate Olsen
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done, discussion appears to be ongoing, albeit at a very slow pace. Moreover, with all participants other than the editor initiating the discussion currently opposed to any change and no sign of animosity or bludgeoning, I don't think this would need a formal closure even if the discussion had reached its conclusion. signed,Rosguill talk 22:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Reply - This discussion is now over 6 months old, and would definitely benefit from closure at some point. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
requesting a closure on a discussion which affects all browser tabs of English Wikipedia. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Mz7 (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Orient Overseas (International)
requesting a closure on the RM. Matthew hk (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done. BD2412  T 03:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Consensus seems clear that the source can't be considered reliable, but a formal closure would be helpful in this case as to whether that means we also have consensus that it's therefore not reliable for anything other than its own opinions, attributed. I know that seems like splitting hairs, sorry. —valereee (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cornish Wrestling Heavyweight Belt
JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 20:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  03:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries without armed forces/Archive 1
Need a not involved editors to close all the thread of the talk page that reopen and vote stacking by ips. Matthew hk (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * not done Why are you asking for closure of a discussion that took place fifteen years ago? Let it lie, already. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, i just need some resolution to that talk page. An admin has protected that page after i post this. See also, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Matthew hk (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ashley_Ellyllon
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * nd nothing for a closer to do here. Please stop listing so many discussions which have minimal participation and/or obviously nothing for a closer to do. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Reply - I disagree. I tried to split Orbs (band) from Ashley Ellyllon, however, Orbs was once again redirected to Ashley Ellyllon.  The album information was not added to Orbs until after the AFD was closed.  The DRV stated that "there's not really a clear consensus here about the possibility of creating a new article if additional sources are found".  I believe that an independent closure can determine whether the version of Orbs that I created today should be put to a second AFD.  Additionally, per WP:G4, Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to independently close there. There’s a super vote to be done, but no closing. No editor is even explicitly in support of your proposal. Haven’t really reviewed the discussions but generally I’d suggest DRV at a later date or possibly AfC, or recreate the article if you have substantially better sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, just skipped to desktop mode to read the DRV. It gives good instruction: the general principles that articles that have the same problems discussed in the AfD will get deleted/reverted, and those that overcome them won't be subject to the outcome of the AfD, should be expected to apply ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Maximum Overload (DragonForce album)
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done to allow for more discussion. Iffy★Chat -- 21:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Village_pump_(proposals)
Should be a straightforward close, but needs doing. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  00:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Taiwan
Consensus is overwhelming. Some users objected to starting the RfC in the first place, as consensus was also very clear from a previous discussion initiated on 21:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC). The discussion has become somewhat off-topic. DrIdiot (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
This discussion plans out what text we should use on January 20, so it must be closed before then. We're about a week out, and discussion has tapered off and there's already been plenty said, so I think it'd be beneficial to close it soon. This would allow time to process any objections and make it easier to shift our attention to planning changes beyond the first paragraph. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 13:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done closed and archived in favour of voicing opinions at this discussion. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Vigorous discussion, closing would be good for future reference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Now at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Having been archived without being closed, it would seem that further discussion is forestalled, and we are stuck with an absence of clear consensus on the issue at bar. The best I can gather from this is that there is general agreement that most propositions that could be sourced to scripture can also be sourced to a WP:RS-worthy examination of scripture, and that it is perhaps better practice to look for such a secondary source. BD2412  T 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done restored to discussion board and closed as no consensus achieved to modify' WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 21:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
Difficult close with high attendance and high importance to policy. No substantial activity in the last week so already overdue a close. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And note that it's a two-part RfC; there's a second set of question-and-answers material below the original. However, I don't think it will be a difficult close at all, because most of the available options resolve to variants of the same thing (editorial discretion to include both names as contextually appropriate, in a form that seems to make sense there).  It's important to keep in mind also that this is a follow-up RfC to other recent ones (including at the same page, e.g. here), and an earlier one that was probably the longest RfC in WP:VPPOL's history (here, followup here), so it should be interpreted in light of previous discussion, not just who happened to show up over the last month.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done -- Beland (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_14
The RfC was archived without being closed. Surtsicna (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done -- Beland (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:International Bureau of Weights and Measures
As an uninvolved party, I was asked to close this discussion. Abstaining from voting, I posed one question that I felt the discussion was lacking, and if no significant reason for keeping the discussion open is given after 7 days, I would consider the discussion closed. I understand that as an uninvolved editor, I can do this; I have closed a discussion only once before.

However, I'm not sure what to do about the related discussion directly above it, Talk:International Bureau of Weights and Measures. It's quite a long section, with some contention, and I'd feel more comfortable if an admin would kindly look things over and decide how to deal with this. Thank you very kindly for your assistance with this matter. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done Usually, I'd consider that this is a discussion that does not actually require a close but since one was requested, I've closed it with a clear consensus that "IBWM" should not be used. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 22:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Baptism of Jesus
I am involved in the discussion, but closure is easy-peasy. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done Closed with clear consensus not to merge. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 16:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Human uses of living things/1
Need a decision at this reassessment. Completing the close can be a little bit complicated so I can do that part if needed. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Closed with a consensus to delist. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:The_Bitter_Truth
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that RM discussions are already automatically advertised for closure at Requested_moves. Unless it's taking a particularly long time, and this one has just passed the 7 days so it isn't, it's not really helpful to add it here as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Still, done. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Maximum_Overload_(DragonForce_album)
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 05:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:COSCO Shipping
Need an uninvolved editor to close the merge discussion of a listed company that have high overlap with its parent company. Matthew hk (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, you are free to implement. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2021_in_heavy_metal_music
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Done.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 15:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Luke Letlow
Discussion has died down, but consensus is unclear. ― Tartan357  Talk 19:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't one. Done.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:Self-reference
JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 18:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done by User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) at 00:57 on 11 February 2021 (UTC).  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 11:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * comment I went through about half of the 1500 transclusions yesterday using autowikibrowser and I'll try to make it through all in the next couple of days. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Chrissy Teigen
Could an uninvolved editor please review and close the RfC? Thanks, Some1 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
I started this RfC, and now would like an uninvolved editor to help me close it. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 16:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:List of Kepler exoplanet candidates in the habitable zone
Discussion on merging 4 pages. After several months of debate and many editors involved, consensus has been reached about merging 2 of the 4 pages, and not merging the other 2. I would appreciate if the debate is closed. Thank you.ExoEditor 18:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify; there was only unanimous consensus to merge two of the articles, which have already been merged. There seems to be consensus to merge the other two as well, as User:Lithopsian has stated, but an uninvolved editor is needed to determine consensus. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done - Consensus to merge the articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:The Great British Bake Off
Discussion went stale for almost a week. Don't know when newer comments will arrive. George Ho (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done. New comment made recently. Withdrawing request for now. --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:The_Bitter_Truth_(album)
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done – Relisted by  SITH   (talk)   at 17:06 on 14 February 2021 (UTC).  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 02:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Noah Oppenheim/Archive 1
Could an experienced editor please review and close? BC1278 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Spitting_Image
This one has been lingering for awhile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done GenQuest  "scribble" 03:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2020 November
– ask that this be closed as soon as possible.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done GenQuest  "scribble" 03:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:All Ghillied Up
Could an uninvolved experienced editor close this? Thanks. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 14:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done (non-admin closure)  SITH   (talk)   16:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:National Institute of Technology, Rourkela
The last post in this merge discussion was a while back, so could someone take a look at it with a view to closing? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Discussion on placing the maintenance tag for large articles on the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The following GARs have been open since October with little to no activity, and I think they can be safely closed as "delist":
 * 1) Good_article_reassessment/Winston_tastes_good_like_a_cigarette_should/1
 * 2) Good article reassessment/Knights of Columbus/1
 * Both done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Tendentious_editing
Last !vote was 9 days ago. One side has a preponderance of !votes but consensus has been disputed so I've been advised to seek an uninvolved closer here. Generalrelative (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I closed it. I am not uninvolved but I did close against my own position because of the clear consensus. I don't think anyone is really disputing the consensus at this point. Loki (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted Loki's close, as s/he was the initiator of the RfC. Really we need a totally uninvolved editor, and perhaps wait the customary 30 days. No deadline and whatnot… — JFG talk 12:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Argentina national football team results (2020–present)
Requesting an uninvolved editor to comment and close this discussion.--Sakiv (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done This is not an RfC, and requires more context. I'll post to the talk page, monitor the discussion, and am willing to close if we get to such a point. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:The_Bitter_Truth_(album)
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 08:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:United States
Requesting an approval of a consensus from third party or closing for a completed RfC. Oliszydlowski (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * why is it completed? Last comment was 4 days ago and the customary 30 day period hasn't elapsed yet (which I noticed after reviewing the RfC). I'd prefer to leave it open for the normal 30 day period, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3
This discussion has been open for almost seven weeks, with no discussion in over five weeks. I believe there is consensus to delete despite having registered a "weak retarget" vote myself. Once in a blue moon, I'll do an INVOLVED close that goes against my own position, in the spirit of IAR, but thought it would be better to request closure here. --BDD (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done by J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits at 20:15 on 23 February 2021 (UTC)  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 03:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I didn't see this listing and am happy for my closure to be overturned to delete if consensus is deemed to be for that. — &thinsp;J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:9-1-1
Merge proposal that has been open for almost 4 months now. Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 00:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done Consensus not to merge. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Military of Hong Kong
Need an uninvolved editor to determine the consensus of this thread, which apparently flooded by ip due to suspected off-site canvassing. Matthew hk (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: First of all the article was turned into a redirect with no discussion, so the default position or most recent stable version would be the article itself rather than the redirect. Secondly Matthew hk struck out many remarks without submitting any evidence that there was off-site canvassing, nor was the SPIs he submitted conclusive ones. The talk page was also locked without any request formally submitted, btw. Please note. Thanks. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * For admin and other closer. Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Matthew hk (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done No consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
This would better be closed by an admin familiar with IRANPOL. The discussion has received feedback from multiple experienced admins/editors. Specially, there's a determining suggestion of 'source restriction' which needs to be considered as a part of the discussion. Regards. -- M h hossein   talk 03:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is about a RfC, which received consensus in November 29, but Mhhossein keeps re-opening the conversation at AN even though it has been closed several times for lack of participation (and adding a code to it so that it won't be closed until 2030!)


 * About source restriction, an editor suggested this was something that goes beyond this RFC:


 * "I had in mind a source restriction for the entire article at least, if not the entire topic area (WP:GS/IRANPOL), because I think that will help future content disputes as well as the present one (as Alex-h points out, a source restriction would affect much more content in the article than just what's at issue in this RFC; it could significantly change what we say about the topic in wikivoice)."


 * Another editor opened a discussion on this at the article's talk page, with very little comments from everyone (including Mhhossein). Mhhossein does not seem to want to accept the consensus of this RfC even though almost all the participants in the RFC agreed the best thing to do was to significantly reduce the text of a section in the article. Also most editors and admins at AN endorsed the close. Idealigic (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Idealigic: Why are you bludgeoning the process again? Why are you saying these things here? -- M h hossein   talk 12:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein: I am not bludgeoning, I'm explaining that your comment about 'source restriction' was a suggestion by an editor who said this could be implemented by an admin to the entire People's Mujahedin of Iran article or IRANPOL areas, and not to one single sentence in a RFC (which would be a very biased way of editing the article, something also others said at AN). You forgot to explain that part. Idealigic (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's pure bludgeoning (probably you'll need to be taken to ANI for continued behavior of bludgeoning). By the way, Levivich showed how the YOU were failing to realize what 'source restriction' is. -- M h hossein   talk 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  04:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
Related to the one above, difficult close with high attendance and not much activity for the last week. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the 2nd half the RfC above; there's just one RfC tag.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that I just closed the other RFC on deadnaming, I got very familar with the issues and had to come up with a method to deal with the giant yarn ball of opinions. I can probably do the same for this RFC; I will just need a day or two to recharge my personal and laptop batteries. -- Beland (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  04:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:R to project namespace
(larger thread ongoing since 1 December 2020, reopened after December 2019 – February 2020 discussion, itself continuation from February–May 2016. This RfC (which was broadly advertised to pretty much every potentially relevant talk page) was closed recently as WP:SNOW. The sole contrarian voice has insisted on reopening it, but does not seem to be presenting a new argument, just displeasure, so I think the close should be restored. (Indeed, that person's argument is basically to just refer to previous discussions where they made the same arguments before.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, SMcCandlish, I've just looked at that to see if I could help, and I'm finding it quite tricky. I agree with you that, if you see the discussion as a choice between two options, then that choice is simple almost to the point of being trivial.  But whenever I look at an RfC that asks for a binary choice, my first question is: "Are these choices mutually exclusive"?  Because if they aren't and there's support for both sides, then the first thing to consider should be "do both".In this case, the framing of the RfC makes the choices mutually exclusive, but I haven't been able to follow why they need to be.  Clearly, there could exist two kinds of template: one for cross-namespace redirects and the other for same-namespace redirects.  I haven't been able to see the reason why that's excluded.  Considering that this affects templates on a truckload of pages, I've decided it's better for me not to touch it.  Maybe someone else will find it closable?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 10:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
Requesting closure of this MOS question.--Trystan (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Brexit Party
Consensus appears to be leaning towards one article, but there is an added complication in whether the article itself should be renamed. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 19:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done Hobit (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Newsmax
RFC proposing merger of Newsmax TV to Newsmax due to redundancy. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_324
It had clear-cut responses, so I think it's not a hard one. It would nice if someone closed this.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as a cautionary note, the very first !vote in that RfC is from a blocked sock. Since the discussion is archived, I didn't strike the comment. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war/Archive 19
A rather convoluted, expired RfC in a divisive content area. There was quite a lot of input and it'd be nice if an uninvolved editor could review whether there's a consensus in favour or against any of the individual questions, so that the effort's not gone to waste. Jr8825 •  Talk  17:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * done — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Controversial topic, will need a proper closing when the time comes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  04:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Chetnik war crimes in World War II
Need an uninvolved editor or admin to close this RfC. Discussion is about whether or not to emphasize throughout the article that there isn't a consensus on whether the Chetniks engaged in genocide. --Griboski (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Daihatsu Rocky
Please review this and close Talk:Daihatsu Rocky Quattro   (talk)|undefined  16:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been open for one days and two hours. RMs usually run for a week at the least, so why do you want it closing so quickly? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I realised that it makes no sense to move. After seeing some examples like Daihatsu Taft, Suzuki Baleno, and Honda Jazz, I decided that moving wasn't worth it. Quattro   (talk)|undefined  20:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In which case, why do you need an admin to close it? See WP:RMCLOSE, last paragraph. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done – closed as "withdrawn".  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 04:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ENF - Embarrassed Nude Female/sandbox
JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 20:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  22:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Emanuel Cleaver
Discussion has run its course and we now need someone uninvolved to assess the conclusions of whether or not to insert this content. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:List of names for cannabis
It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could assess the consensus for a merge from List of names for cannabis strains to List of names for cannabis, being discussed at Talk:List of names for cannabis. The last contribution was in mid-January. Klbrain (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Difficult close, relatively evenly split on votes, slightly favouring inclusion, but there are other issues that need to be taken into account, like whether or not they are a reliable source. Close has been requested by another user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * RfC has been archived, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_326. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Nikki_Amuka-Bird
Requesting an uninvolved editor to comment and close the discussion, Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:NXT (WWE brand)
Thirty days have lapsed, just needs formal closure from an uninvolved editor.LM2000 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 17:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Discussion has been quite lengthy and many proposals have been put forward, making consensus difficult to determine. A formal closure by an uninvolved user is necessary. Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * still doing. It's a very complicated discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

WT:FAC#Proposal to add criteria 1f
Could someone please close this discussion at WT:FAC regarding an addition to Featured article criteria? Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * done, thanks @Wugapodes, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Atintanians
Has been open since December 7 2020. Khirurg (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done signed,Rosguill talk 20:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC: Does the IBT article dated 22 August 2017 confirm the claim that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash?
Hi, can somebody neutral close the Talk:Bitcoin Cash request for comment discussion, please? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Requesting closure on the discussion to add OpenCritic Percentage Recommended Score to Video Game Manual of Style on Reception sections. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 18:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:PragerU
An uninvolved experienced editor is needed to assess consensus on six questions. A conduct issue is now pending a Arbitration Enforcement concerning one of the editors, so that an uninvolved editor must be one who is not a party to the conduct dispute. My role was only composing and posting the RFC, and I am willing to assess consensus if other editors agree that I am neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Uyghur genocide
An uninvolved experienced editor is needed to assess consensus. There was a nuanced discussion regarding the appropriateness of using certain images within the article and I am involved. The discussion has largely died out and a formal close would be helpful in moving forward. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Go  Phightins  !  11:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done  Go  Phightins  !  12:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Dinesh D'Souza
Discussion has run for nearly thirty days and has largely petered out. A formal close will be useful for future reference, and because consensus is not abundantly clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * — Mikehawk10 (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Schlage_doch,_gewünschte_Stunde,_BWV_53
Requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In next hour or so.  Go  Phightins  !  23:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

" done  Go  Phightins  !  23:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19_misinformation
An univolved editor is required to assess whether 1) it would be premature for a close (there have been no new contributions to the survey or by new editors in a while, and what little discussion there is is mostly stalled between the same few editors) 2) what consensus, if any, has emerged from the discussion at this stage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done The conversation still appears to be active and, candidly, based on my reading, has not (yet?) reached a consensus.  Go  Phightins  !  23:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Stanley Clarke
Requesting closure on this one. Only 2 votes. It's been a while. TanookiKoopa (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * actually, 3 votes in favor and 1 against. However, the vote against the merge is apparently based on policy. -   (talk)  12:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
Could an uninvolved and experienced editor please close the discussion here? It looks like the discussion has stopped (I am the only editor to have commented since 8 March). The discussion focused largely on the WP:USEBYOTHERS guideline and the WP:GLOBAL essay section in determining the extent to which we could consider the source reliable. I think the discussion clearly achieved a rough consensus regarding Radio Free Asia's reliability (and whether or not in-text attribution is recommended), though I was involved in the discussion so I would prefer if another user could take a look at it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Go  Phightins  !  21:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done  Go  Phightins  !  21:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Elliot_Page
No discussion in over a month. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 11:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic_teaching_on_homosexuality
Responses are infrequent but seem to clearly trend in one direction. I'd prefer a formal closure before commencing the merge. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 00:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Mary Lou McDonald
Requesting an outside editor to determine consensus and bring this RfC to a close. I would also ask that the closing editor decide, based on consensus, one way or another if the proposed information should be "stated as fact" or not if indeed included. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 01:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I was in the process of writing a closure for this discussion as well, but I agree with your conclusion. Since I also answered 's additional request, I've added some of my text below your own. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 02:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, well the more the merrier I suppose! We should probably start using the template more often as noted in the header of the page. Regards   Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 02:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for taking an interest and bringing the RfC to a speedy close. I had feared it could take another month before anything happened. CeltBrowne (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/That Vegan Teacher
– Nearly 8 days since last relisted. Please either close or relist. <b style="color:orange">Linguist111</b><sup style="color:purple">talk 19:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Already done - I was not aware of this request until now. ( Non-administrator comment ) ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 05:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Do it yourself
Could an uninvolved editor review the conensus for a merge between DIY ethic and Do it yourself at Talk:Do it yourself. Klbrain (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done GenQuest  "scribble" 02:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
I am involved, so I cannot close it, but it would be highly useful to determine consensus and to make a listing at WP:RSP following the close. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: The discussion has moved to an due to a lack of new comments. Closure is probably in order. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * done.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 11:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Requests for permissions/File mover
Been open for almost a month and a half. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 16:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment from Celestina007 — Perhaps asides template editing & new page reviewing, file moving has to be the most complex and interesting fields one can operate in, infact as I told Godsy today I fell in love with working with files because of its complexity as it isn’t so much about moving the files, but understanding in general, file policies such as WP:IUP & WP:FURG and list of other polices or guidelines before proceeding to initiate a “rename media”, it’s very interesting & I can’t say that enough. The major problem Alexis raised was that I needed to do more reviewing and their currently was no backlog at the time I made the request so there wasn’t any real need to have the perm(which indeed was a plausible reason) but of recent I’ve seen a backlog growing, thus I believe it’s my onus, “if I claim to love working with files” to step in now & start working if given the perm without which I can’t reduce the backlog. Celestina007 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  18:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:8chan
Deadlock of opinions, and discussion seems to have died down, need outside person to take a look and close it. Good day, Hehpillt28 (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, I'm not going to have time to actually write my closing statement for another week, probably. Given how these things go, I am guessing nobody else will do it before then, but if you want to, be my guest. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been two weeks. Any update? * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 18:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I fell sick and it slipped my mind. I will try to get to it in the next couple of days; if I don't, someone else can feel free to take it over. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Parler
. This is about whether to include an antisemitism themed sidebar in the Parler app article. -  (talk)  18:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Upon closer examination, this discussion appears to be fairly close. At least one editor in the discussion explicitly asked for an uninvolved admin to close it, so I will step back for now since I am not an admin. I may re-examine it in ~2-3 weeks or so and provide a formal close if nobody else handles this by then. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please just close it. Any uninvolved editor can do it. (if anybody disagrees with your closure, they can always ask an admin to review it). I think it's very clear that there's no consensus to include the sidebar. -  (talk)  23:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Will close. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would undo that if I were you, no offense but a discussion that contentious could use a set of more experienced eyes. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you like to take a look? I could undo it if you would like to. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two experienced admins opposing the inclusion of the sidebar already, and none, as far I am aware of, supporting it. The closure looks fine. Thank you Mikehawk10, for taking the time to carefully analyze this quite lenghty discussion. -   (talk)  03:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure
– ask that an experienced editor please complete a speedy procedural closure of this move request.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This attempt to speedily close the discussion has gotten a bit of pushback in the discussion on the relevant page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * not done The discussion was closed (substantively) by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  04:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Frédéric Chopin
– Related discussions, most of them leading up to the RfC, mainly at Talk:Frédéric Chopin (and some subsequent sections on that talk page); and at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 200. Uninvolved closure seems necessary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest that User:Smerus initiates these actions, because the new article Sexuality of Chopin seriously compromises this particular RfC. Smerus has made the most edits to Frédéric Chopin and was responsible for bringing the article to WP:FA status. So far there seems to be consensus amongst User:Smerus, User:Nihil novi, User:Toccata quarta, User:Kosboot, User:JackofOz, User:SPECIFICO, User:Darwinek, user:Piotrus, user:Aza24 and me. I suggest an experienced administrator. Mathsci (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that I should initiate anything in this matter, given the apparent hostility towards me of some of the editors contributing to the discussion. Isn't this a matter for the consideration of who is i/c the RfC? I agree that the involvement of a senior administrator would be helpful.--Smerus (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - Well, first, I am hardly in charge of the RFC, as if anyone was in charge of it. I was merely trying to find a way to spread the unhappiness evenly.  My own opinion is:

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion of this topic should be moved to the main section of WP:AN.
 * The creation of the sub-article Sexuality of Chopin was an end run around the RFC, and I would rather see an end run in American football than in Wikipedia.
 * However, now that the sub-article has been created, either the sub-article should be deleted or merged into the main article, or any issues should be addressed in the sub-article.
 * The RFC is moot if the sub-article is kept.
 * If the sub-article is merged or deleted, an administrator should close the RFC.
 * Re. suggestion to move to AN: disagree – the RfC can be closed without splitting the same discussion over multiple pages.
 * Re. end run: the existence or non-existence of a sub-article is unrelated to the RfC.
 * Re. "either the sub-article should be deleted or merged into the main article, or any issues should be addressed in the sub-article" – no, the RfC decides on what goes in the main article, irrespective of the existence of a sub-article.
 * Re. RfC becoming moot after creation of sub-article: no, that suggestion makes no sense.
 * Re. conditions on close of the RfC: no, again, the suggestion of such conditions makes no sense.
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: end run, yes, the POV fork is an end run around the RfC. The RfC was always intended to be about how the matter is covered in Wikipedia; claiming it only applies to material under a specific title is WP:WIKILAWYERing. IMO an admin should G6 delete the fork or protect it as a redirect as a violation of dispute resolution procedures. Crossroads -talk- 06:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I support the opinion of Crossroads in this matter.--Smerus (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The irritating thing about modifying RfCs after creation is that it makes it difficult to see how much support there is for a certain option, because most don't revisit a discussion. A "remove entirely" option should've been part of the original RfC. At least one editor who voted for an option to retain the content originally changed their vote to the option F afterwards. After F was added, there was a notable % of support for that option. It's thus harder to determine, purely from the survey, a consensus on whether the content should be in the article imo. Possibly a more dedicated closer will be willing to read through all the threaded discussion and parse intentions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have tagged the redirect as a Redirect for Discussion and am recommending that it be fully protected. However, if the community thinks, in the RFD discussion, that the sub-article should exist, that is a valid result of the RFD also.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I have adopted the suggestion of Robert McClenon and raised the closure of the RfC at Administrators' notice board.--Smerus (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

In appealing yet again for someone to close this RfC, can I mention that this has now been waiting so long that part of the related discussions has now been automatically archived to Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Archive_19.--Smerus (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done, although probably not to the satisfaction of any of the parties. The community hasn't reached any conclusions about how to handle this matter.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 10:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Gary Young
No consensus reached, but some policy oversight needed. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: There is also an older RfC on the same talk page that is also ripe for closure, Talk:Donald Gary Young. Cheers! BD2412  T 19:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I closed the RfC you mentioned in the section title here. On the other one, I am not sure I am in a good position to assess the consensus there. Based on a single read, it didn't look like consensus had really been reached, and candidly, I am too tired at the moment to dig into it further. Thanks,  Go  Phightins  !  00:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Was closed, marked as done --DannyS712 (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Page mover/delete-redirect
Please close the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Page mover/delete-redirect. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Was closed, marked as done --DannyS712 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2021 February
– please close this Move review discussion.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald_Trump
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * not done Formal closure appears unneeded, thread was already archived --DannyS712 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Soviet Union men's national under-17 basketball team
A closure here does not seem too controversial. ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 00:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  16:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:John_Oliver
It only has been 10 days, but there seems to be a consensus for Option 3. Could an uninvolved editor take a look and close it if they feel it appropriate? Talk:John_Oliver Eccekevin (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * done Boud (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 16
Open since 13 January 2021, already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  20:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Russia–Turkey proxy conflict
Went stale for at least two weeks after last comment. --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done. Withdrawing as the article was redirected per AFD. --George Ho (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:The Great British Bake Off
Needs uninvolved editor to close this. --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done: Closed as create and merge per wp:CONSENSUS. GenQuest  "scribble" 03:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:List of people from Ukraine
I would appreciate of someone can formally close this.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done -- The SandDoctor Talk 02:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_15
Long discussion on a complex and high-profile topic, but no activity in over a week. Needs a look-over and a good closure from an experienced, uninvolved editor. Consensus unclear on first spec. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done -- The SandDoctor Talk 01:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Proud_Boys
 Heart  (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Derek_Chauvin
Talk:Derek_Chauvin --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums
Discussion has died down for over a week and consensus is unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glide08 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC) done – no consensus and discussion has already been archived. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
- no new comments since 14 March. The entry at WP:RSP needs updated based on the outcome of this RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

done Stifle (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discographies
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * nd this RfC was closed within 24 hours and as such not advertised. It has next to zero actual participation and a consensus cannot be ascertained from the discussion. can you please be more careful submitting requests for closure? There's a large backlog on this board and around 1/3 of the requests are submitted by you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald_Trump
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done by JFG. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Today%27s featured article
This discussion has been open for 10 days and could probably be left open for another few, but it must be closed before April 1 or it will be moot. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done by Wug. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Review of DRV closures by King of Hearts
There have been a couple of requests for closure of WP:AN - I've put out some requests elsewhere, but am struggling to get someone to review it (most of the DRV crew are INVOLVED, but it shouldn't need specialist knowledge in that field to close) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong
Need not involved editor to determinate the consensus of the Rfc and its mother thread. Matthew hk (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done --Salix alba (talk): 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page/Archive_200
Could an admin please close the discussion at talk:Main_Page/Archive_200%23Adding_a_link_to_the_Teahouse_in_the_%E2%80%9COther_areas_of_Wikipedia%E2%80%9D_section to determine the consensus and implement the necessary changes? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it's been sitting around for a while I've closed it. Hope the close provides a path forward. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * already done -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Adriana Chechik
– Was relisted from a DRV and appears to have not made it into the normal system. Hobit (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done by Barkeep49. Daniel (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:World_Ocean
Could an uninvolved editor please review the consensus for a merger of World ocean into ocean at this discussion and then carry out the closing accordingly? EMsmile (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

closed as redirect --Salix alba (talk): 04:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:L. L. Zamenhof
Khiikiat (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 02:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Germans
This Rfc ended a few days ago and followed lengthy discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups and Talk:Germans. Because of the divisiveness of the issue and the polarized (and at times tense) nature of the discussion, the Rfc would probably be best closed by an administrator. --Tserton (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done. -- The SandDoctor Talk 18:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Open way longer than necessary, and is pretty short. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * done. -- The SandDoctor Talk 18:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done Closed with no action taken. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 22:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers
 Heart  (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have made the close, though I would welcome some feedback before this section is archived. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 18:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with the close. It was well written, in my opinion. The one thing that I would add though is that discounting A because it is the status quo doesn't sound right. Generally speaking, there can be consensus to stick with the status quo and discounting purely on the grounds that it is what is already done could create a fallacy. Marking this section as done. -- The SandDoctor  Talk 00:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * done Thanks; I've re-worded slightly. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 00:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Files for discussion/2021 February 8
(oldest) – These discussions are ready for closure and/or additional comments (non-admin assistance is welcomed). Many have been open for months and I've either already commented or re-listed. Thanks,  F ASTILY   00:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * done . -- The SandDoctor Talk 03:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests
Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Appears to be POV pushing on these RfCs (multiple RfCs running at the same time, meandering proposals in the RfCs, etc). It would be helpful for more uninvolved editors to have a look. Quite a political topic that both pro-china and pro-hong kong editors I would guess are involved in. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't even saw any rfc tag..... Matthew hk (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's probably why it's under "Other types of closing requests" and not under "Requests for comment". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If it not a Rfc. Don't claim it as one. Since it did not even tagged as a Rfc, then people running a lot of Rfc to running out the commenting quota from those editors with RfC quota, does not affect this thread : Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests . Matthew hk (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see nothing to close there. There clearly isn't support for renaming the article, but a close wouldn't affect that, you would need a follow-up WP:RM discussion.  Regarding the wider question of when the protest event "ended", there is minimal well-sourced discussion of that topic. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 23:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur that there is nothing here to close. A WP:RM discussion appears in order. -- The SandDoctor Talk 00:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 *  Reply - To prevent WP:MULTI, it may be prudent to close this discussion and to call attention to Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * not done for bot. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)