This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
(Initiated 1339 days ago on 2 September 2020) Need formal closure of the ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#user:Za-ari-masen_POV_pushing,_removing_citations,_and_referenced_texts_and_general_WP:DE since a topic ban was proposed and it saw participation by more than a dozen editors. Orientls ( talk) 08:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1399 days ago on 4 July 2020) Pretty polarised response on this one. Can I request an experienced closer close the discussion? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1362 days ago on 9 August 2020) Would an uninvolved editor or admin please assist in closing the discussion? PackMecEng ( talk) 03:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1315 days ago on 26 September 2020) Upon receiving an explanation regarding the file at the discussion, the nominator has withdrawn, and no other commentary has ensued as of this post.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 America 1000 17:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1337 days ago on 3 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion and close it? -- Johnosaunders ( talk) 23:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1366 days ago on 6 August 2020) Nardog ( talk) 06:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1314 days ago on 27 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1359 days ago on 13 August 2020)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)
(Initiated 1319 days ago on 22 September 2020) – Asking for closure of this discussion, please. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 08:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1427 days ago on 6 June 2020) Would an uninvolved editor or admin please evaluate consensus in this discussion? Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 10:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1393 days ago on 9 July 2020) 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)
Collapsed side discussion. starship .paint ( talk) 01:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
(Initiated 1366 days ago on 6 August 2020) Nardog ( talk) 06:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1362 days ago on 10 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1360 days ago on 12 August 2020) 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)
Collapsed side discussion Crossroads -talk- 03:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
(Initiated 1360 days ago on 12 August 2020) Should be closed by an uninvolved experienced editor. Orientls ( talk) 07:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1354 days ago on 18 August 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309 § 112.ua? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 02:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1347 days ago on 25 August 2020) the vote result has already been reached -- Michaelelijahtanuwijaya ( talk) 08:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1345 days ago on 27 August 2020) 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'sguy ( talk) 00:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1344 days ago on 28 August 2020) Needs to be assessed regarding two questions. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 18:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1345 days ago on 27 August 2020) 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. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 00:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1335 days ago on 6 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion, which has been relisted three times already? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 05:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1312 days ago on 29 September 2020) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1499 days ago on 25 March 2020) As an involved editor, would like this merge discussion to be formally closed. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 12:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1461 days ago on 2 May 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1400 days ago on 2 July 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1399 days ago on 4 July 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1378 days ago on 25 July 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1351 days ago on 20 August 2020) A consensus appears to have been reached, but request that an uninvolved editor review it. Thanks. — Ojorojo ( talk) 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1331 days ago on 9 September 2020) Requesting closure of the merge discussion please. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 11:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1315 days ago on 25 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 03:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1308 days ago on 2 October 2020) Should this discussion be closed as synonymous to Talk:Kenosha_unrest#Split_proposed? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 22:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1354 days ago on 18 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1332 days ago on 8 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1335 days ago on 6 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1353 days ago on 19 August 2020) Could an experienced Wikipedian please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1337 days ago on 4 September 2020) RFC has ended. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1344 days ago on 27 August 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 01:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1342 days ago on 30 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1335 days ago on 5 September 2020) Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313#RFC:_HuffPost
This discussion was archived without closure. 192.76.8.89 ( talk) 18:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1325 days ago on 16 September 2020) Please would an uninvolved person please bring a formal end to this RFC. Thank you. Tyrroi ( talk) 15:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1360 days ago on 12 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1341 days ago on 31 August 2020) Closure is requested of this discussion. (It was an RfC.) Crossroads -talk- 16:25, 11 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)
(Initiated 1298 days ago on 13 October 2020) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 13:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1308 days ago on 3 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus of this close review? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1312 days ago on 29 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1320 days ago on 21 September 2020) When appropriate, would an uninvolved editor please close this RFC?-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 17:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1318 days ago on 23 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- OrderOftheNerds ( talk) 17:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1317 days ago on 23 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1317 days ago on 24 September 2020) Seems to be a clear consensus to me, but closure was disputed. -- Beland ( talk) 06:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1415 days ago on 18 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 20:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1433 days ago on 31 May 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)
(Initiated 1401 days ago on 2 July 2020) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1376 days ago on 26 July 2020) -sche ( talk) 00:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1314 days ago on 27 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1303 days ago on 8 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1330 days ago on 10 September 2020) Just a few participants with an outcome that is unclear. The Banner talk 09:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1393 days ago on 10 July 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1372 days ago on 31 July 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1296 days ago on 14 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1374 days ago on 28 July 2020) I suspect that the consensus is to delete, but I'm not 100% sure. My only participation has been tagging an unsigned comment. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1338 days ago on 3 September 2020) I think this should be closed as Keep. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1324 days ago on 17 September 2020) All participants have voted to keep and purge the subcategories. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1323 days ago on 18 September 2020) Apparent consensus is to merge to the parent category. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1318 days ago on 22 September 2020) There is consensus to rename the category. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1316 days ago on 24 September 2020) Consensus is most probably to merge. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1286 days ago on 25 October 2020)
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)
(Initiated 1283 days ago on 27 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1285 days ago on 25 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1278 days ago on 1 November 2020) Could someone please review Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election#Now that it's November, when should we move?? 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)
(Initiated 1352 days ago on 20 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1299 days ago on 11 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1316 days ago on 24 September 2020) I believe the consensus is to merge into The Thirteen Colonies tree. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1316 days ago on 25 September 2020) Consensus to rename. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1297 days ago on 14 October 2020) Discussion has lasted nearly a month and opposition is unanimous. 207.161.86.162 ( talk) 08:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1311 days ago on 30 September 2020) There is consensus to rename. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1311 days ago on 30 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1284 days ago on 27 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 23:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1329 days ago on 12 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1393 days ago on 10 July 2020) 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 London 11:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1413 days ago on 20 June 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1369 days ago on 2 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1305 days ago on 6 October 2020) Could an experienced editor analyse and close this discussion? ─ The Aafī ( talk) 11:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
(Initiated 1310 days ago on 1 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1295 days ago on 15 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1268 days ago on 12 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1304 days ago on 6 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1336 days ago on 5 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1319 days ago on 21 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1327 days ago on 13 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1685 days ago on 22 September 2019) 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)
(Initiated 1286 days ago on 25 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1281 days ago on 30 October 2020) 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| contribs) 03:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1335 days ago on 6 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1297 days ago on 13 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1320 days ago on 21 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 03:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1289 days ago on 21 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1281 days ago on 29 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1275 days ago on 4 November 2020) It seems like there is a consensus in that discussion. -- Delasse ( talk) 11:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1269 days ago on 10 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 22:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1267 days ago on 13 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1322 days ago on 18 September 2020) There is also related discussion at talk:Kyiv. — Michael Z. 19:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1317 days ago on 23 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1310 days ago on 1 October 2020) Would appreciate a quick hand closing this. Thanks. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1309 days ago on 2 October 2020) Requesting an experience editor or admin to close this please. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 08:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1301 days ago on 10 October 2020) 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 · c) buidhe 21:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1286 days ago on 25 October 2020) Could an uninvolved editor close this please? Thanks. Mgasparin ( talk) 01:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1285 days ago on 25 October 2020) Could an uninvolved editor close this RfC? Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1276 days ago on 3 November 2020) An uninvolved editor is appreciated; thanks. George Ho ( talk) 03:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1264 days ago on 15 November 2020) Consensus should be easy to evaluate, but a formal close was requested. ( t · c) buidhe 13:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1313 days ago on 28 September 2020) Is there consensus against the proposal, or should it be relisted per the last comment? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1283 days ago on 28 October 2020) Could an uninvolved experienced editor please review Talk:French Revolution##RFC:_Second_paragraph_of_lede? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1361 days ago on 10 August 2020)
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 ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Tag bombing) -- StoyanStoyanov80 ( talk) 22:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
anoother opinion. Please, see WP:thirdopinion to request another opinion. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1256 days ago on 24 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 00:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1337 days ago on 3 September 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)
(Initiated 1303 days ago on 8 October 2020) Can someone neutral (doesn't need to be an admin) close this? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC) {{ done}} AIRcorn (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1345 days ago on 26 August 2020) 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)
When an RfC is used to resolve a dispute, the resolution is determined the same way as for any other discussion: the participants in the discussion determine what they have agreed on and try to implement their agreement.Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
(Initiated 1274 days ago on 6 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1264 days ago on 16 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion, which has now been relisted thrice? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 01:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1283 days ago on 28 October 2020) A discussion about whether or not the article should be merged went down. However, there are multiple opinions.
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)
(Initiated 1412 days ago on 21 June 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1345 days ago on 26 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1310 days ago on 1 October 2020) It's been open two months and very discussion has taken place of late. -- Calidum 18:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1256 days ago on 24 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1275 days ago on 5 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1263 days ago on 16 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1303 days ago on 7 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1292 days ago on 19 October 2020) (Initiated 1334 days ago on 7 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1264 days ago on 16 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1356 days ago on 15 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1320 days ago on 21 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 23:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1305 days ago on 6 October 2020) Requesting an uninvolved administrator assessment of consensus here. Thanks, Neutrality talk 02:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1308 days ago on 3 October 2020) 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. — MarkH21 talk 20:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1303 days ago on 8 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1232 days ago on 17 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1229 days ago on 20 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1307 days ago on 3 October 2020) Please come and close this move review. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1288 days ago on 22 October 2020) Can someone please evaluate the consensus at Talk:TikTok#RfC on "Chinese", 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)
(Initiated 1247 days ago on 3 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1292 days ago on 19 October 2020)
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)
(Initiated 1286 days ago on 24 October 2020) Please come and close this move review. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1284 days ago on 27 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1809 days ago on 20 May 2019) A stale split discussion. Matthew hk ( talk) 19:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1393 days ago on 9 July 2020) Consensus seems fairly clear, but lack of a formal closure on this one has resulted in the issue being (very unclearly) rehashed at " Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity", so this would clearly benefit from a written close. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1286 days ago on 24 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please assess consensus at this design-related discussion? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1304 days ago on 6 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1272 days ago on 7 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1272 days ago on 8 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1274 days ago on 6 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 21:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1264 days ago on 15 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 00:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1474 days ago on 20 April 2020) [or (Initiated 1497 days ago on 27 March 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1271 days ago on 8 November 2020) 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#Changing_'London'_to_'Greater_London' Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Europe_and_North_Asia Wikipedia: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)
(Initiated 1261 days ago on 19 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1263 days ago on 16 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? ― Ætoms talk 23:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1288 days ago on 22 October 2020) 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. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1280 days ago on 31 October 2020) Could an uninvolved editor close this RfC? No votes since November 16. Thank you. starship .paint ( talk) 13:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1254 days ago on 26 November 2020) We meed an official closure of this expired RFC. GoodDay ( talk) 16:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1257 days ago on 23 November 2020) Could an editor please review consensus at this discussion? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1340 days ago on 31 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1340 days ago on 1 September 2020) We need an administrator to close this expired RFC. -- Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 10:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1239 days ago on 11 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1304 days ago on 6 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1242 days ago on 8 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 2570 days ago on 20 April 2017) It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could assess the merge/rewrite proposal at Talk:Sha Tin New Town#Merger proposal. Matthew hk ( talk) 08:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1639 days ago on 7 November 2019) It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could assess the merge proposal for some Dutch newspapers at Talk:NRC Handelsblad#Proposed merge with Algemeen Handelsblad and Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant. Klbrain ( talk) 01:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1521 days ago on 4 March 2020) It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could assess the merge/rewrite proposal at Talk:Sha Tin#Parallel article - Sha Tin - Sha Tin New Town - Sha Tin District. Matthew hk ( talk) 08:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1212 days ago on 7 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1261 days ago on 18 November 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#The Canary? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 23:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1270 days ago on 9 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1263 days ago on 16 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1240 days ago on 9 December 2020) RFC proposing merger of Newsmax Media to Newsmax due to redundancy. IHateAccounts ( talk) 01:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1231 days ago on 19 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1525 days ago on 29 February 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1259 days ago on 21 November 2020) Would appreciate if someone uninvolved could assess and close this. Avilich ( talk) 20:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1234 days ago on 15 December 2020) Not a difficult one, but probably needs a formal close for other reasons. —valereee ( talk) 00:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1257 days ago on 22 November 2020) I believe this discussion has run its course and there is rough consensus. Mdewman6 ( talk) 21:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1307 days ago on 3 October 2020) 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. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 01:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1260 days ago on 19 November 2020) – ask that this be closed as soon as possible. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1249 days ago on 30 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1237 days ago on 13 December 2020) Need an uninvolved editor to close the merge discussion of non-notable private (subsidiary) company . Matthew hk ( talk) 19:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1403 days ago on 29 June 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1250 days ago on 30 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1211 days ago on 7 January 2021) Please close this AfD discussion.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 23:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1257 days ago on 23 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1238 days ago on 12 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1250 days ago on 30 November 2020) JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 16:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1204 days ago on 14 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1470 days ago on 24 April 2020) Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 5#File:The Terror of War.jpg 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)
(Initiated 1397 days ago on 6 July 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 03:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1276 days ago on 3 November 2020) requesting a closure on a discussion which affects all browser tabs of English Wikipedia. — andrybak ( talk) 11:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1235 days ago on 14 December 2020) requesting a closure on the RM. Matthew hk ( talk) 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1230 days ago on 20 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1219 days ago on 30 December 2020) JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 20:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 6698 days ago on 31 December 2005) 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)
(Initiated 1220 days ago on 30 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
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 applyProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1202 days ago on 17 January 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1217 days ago on 1 January 2021) Should be a straightforward close, but needs doing. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 09:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1196 days ago on 23 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1234 days ago on 16 December 2020) 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. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 13:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1440 days ago on 24 May 2020) Vigorous discussion, closing would be good for future reference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#Scriptural texts (WP:RSPSCRIPTURE). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1248 days ago on 1 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1196 days ago on 23 January 2021) The RfC was archived without being closed. Surtsicna ( talk) 15:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1351 days ago on 21 August 2020) 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#Use of the English name (and acronym) for this organisation. 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)
(Initiated 1349 days ago on 22 August 2020) I am involved in the discussion, but closure is easy-peasy. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1324 days ago on 16 September 2020) Need a decision at this reassessment. Completing the close can be a little bit complicated so I can do that part if needed. AIRcorn (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1189 days ago on 30 January 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1202 days ago on 17 January 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1230 days ago on 19 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1220 days ago on 30 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1219 days ago on 30 December 2020) Discussion has died down, but consensus is unclear. ― Tartan357 Talk 19:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1283 days ago on 28 October 2020) JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 18:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1226 days ago on 24 December 2020) Could an uninvolved editor please review and close the RfC? Thanks, Some1 ( talk) 21:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1198 days ago on 21 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1310 days ago on 30 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1183 days ago on 4 February 2021) Discussion went stale for almost a week. Don't know when newer comments will arrive. George Ho ( talk) 18:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1180 days ago on 7 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1261 days ago on 18 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review and close? BC1278 ( talk) 19:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1279 days ago on 31 October 2020) This one has been lingering for awhile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1265 days ago on 15 November 2020) – ask that this be closed as soon as possible. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1221 days ago on 29 December 2020) Could an uninvolved experienced editor close this? Thanks. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 14:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1220 days ago on 30 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1218 days ago on 1 January 2021) Discussion on placing the maintenance tag for large articles on the article. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1171 days ago on 16 February 2021)
Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1202 days ago on 16 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1177 days ago on 10 February 2021) Requesting an uninvolved editor to comment and close this discussion.-- Sakiv ( talk) 23:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1181 days ago on 7 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 23:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1194 days ago on 24 January 2021) Requesting an approval of a consensus from third party or closing for a completed RfC. Oliszydlowski ( talk) 05:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1212 days ago on 6 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1284 days ago on 26 October 2020) Merge proposal that has been open for almost 4 months now. Chlod ( say hi!) 00:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1225 days ago on 24 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1245 days ago on 4 December 2020) 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. -- Mhhossein talk 03:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
"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)."
(Initiated 1242 days ago on 8 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1225 days ago on 24 December 2020) (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)
(Initiated 1218 days ago on 1 January 2021) Requesting closure of this MOS question.-- Trystan ( talk) 14:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1209 days ago on 10 January 2021) Consensus appears to be leaning towards one article, but there is an added complication in whether the article itself should be renamed. — Czello 19:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1236 days ago on 13 December 2020) RFC proposing merger of Newsmax TV to Newsmax due to redundancy. IHateAccounts ( talk) 01:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1209 days ago on 9 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1236 days ago on 14 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1238 days ago on 12 December 2020) Controversial topic, will need a proper closing when the time comes. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 16:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1224 days ago on 25 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1155 days ago on 4 March 2021) Please review this and close Talk:Daihatsu Rocky#Requested move 5 March 2021 Quattro (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1161 days ago on 27 February 2021) JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 20:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1185 days ago on 2 February 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1521 days ago on 3 March 2020) 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#Proposed merge of List of names for cannabis strains into List of names for cannabis. The last contribution was in mid-January. Klbrain ( talk) 17:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1216 days ago on 3 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1215 days ago on 3 January 2021) Requesting an uninvolved editor to comment and close the discussion, Thanks. – Davey2010 Talk 17:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1183 days ago on 5 February 2021) Thirty days have lapsed, just needs formal closure from an uninvolved editor. LM2000 ( talk) 14:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1197 days ago on 21 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1185 days ago on 3 February 2021) Could someone please close this discussion at WT:FAC regarding an addition to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria? Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1243 days ago on 7 December 2020) Has been open since December 7 2020. Khirurg ( talk) 04:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1204 days ago on 14 January 2021) Hi, can somebody neutral close the 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? request for comment discussion, please? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1204 days ago on 15 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1194 days ago on 24 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1187 days ago on 31 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1179 days ago on 8 February 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1179 days ago on 9 February 2021) Requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
" {{ done}} Go Phightins ! 23:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1170 days ago on 17 February 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1231 days ago on 19 December 2020) Requesting closure on this one. Only 2 votes. It's been a while. TanookiKoopa ( talk) 21:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 12:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)(Initiated 1173 days ago on 15 February 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1238 days ago on 12 December 2020) No discussion in over a month. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 03:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1384 days ago on 18 July 2020) Responses are infrequent but seem to clearly trend in one direction. I'd prefer a formal closure before commencing the merge. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1172 days ago on 16 February 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1157 days ago on 3 March 2021) – Nearly 8 days since last relisted. Please either close or relist. Linguist111 talk 19:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1468 days ago on 26 April 2020) Could an uninvolved editor review the conensus for a merge between DIY ethic and Do it yourself at Talk:Do it yourself#Proposed merge of DIY ethic into Do it yourself. Klbrain ( talk) 09:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1213 days ago on 6 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1217 days ago on 1 January 2021) Been open for almost a month and a half. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 16:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1266 days ago on 13 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1210 days ago on 9 January 2021). This is about whether to include an antisemitism themed sidebar in the Parler app article. -
Daveout
(talk) 18:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 23:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 03:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)(Initiated 1145 days ago on 15 March 2021) – 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)
(Initiated 1225 days ago on 25 December 2020) – Related discussions, most of them leading up to the RfC, mainly at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#Swiss-Radio-and-TV "outing" of Chopin (and some subsequent sections on that talk page); and at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 200#Frédéric Chopin. Uninvolved closure seems necessary. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:00, 26 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)
(Initiated 1222 days ago on 28 December 2020) No consensus reached, but some policy oversight needed. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@ BD2412:: 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)
(Initiated 1169 days ago on 18 February 2021) Please close the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Page mover/delete-redirect#RFC on granting delete-redirect to page movers. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1184 days ago on 4 February 2021) – please close this Move review discussion. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 16:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1172 days ago on 15 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 00:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1157 days ago on 2 March 2021) A closure here does not seem too controversial. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 00:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1158 days ago on 1 March 2021) 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#Request_for_comment:_lead_sentence Eccekevin ( talk) 22:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1206 days ago on 13 January 2021) Open since 13 January 2021, already relisted twice. Frietjes ( talk) 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1190 days ago on 28 January 2021) Went stale for at least two weeks after last comment. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1183 days ago on 4 February 2021) Needs uninvolved editor to close this. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1218 days ago on 1 January 2021) I would appreciate of someone can formally close this.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 18:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1186 days ago on 2 February 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1159 days ago on 28 February 2021) Heart (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1138 days ago on 21 March 2021) Talk:Derek_Chauvin#Splitting_proposal -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1198 days ago on 20 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1171 days ago on 17 February 2021) - 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)
(Initiated 1169 days ago on 19 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1160 days ago on 28 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 02:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1146 days ago on 14 March 2021) 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. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1151 days ago on 9 March 2021) There have been a couple of requests for closure of WP:AN#Review of DRV closures by King of Hearts - 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)
(Initiated 1205 days ago on 14 January 2021) Need not involved editor to determinate the consensus of the Rfc and its mother thread. Matthew hk ( talk) 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1194 days ago on 24 January 2021) Could an admin please close the discussion at talk:Main_Page/Archive_200#Adding_a_link_to_the_Teahouse_in_the_“Other_areas_of_Wikipedia”_section to determine the consensus and implement the necessary changes? Thanks, Interstellarity ( talk) 17:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1176 days ago on 12 February 2021) – Was relisted from a DRV and appears to have not made it into the normal system. Hobit ( talk) 13:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1159 days ago on 1 March 2021) 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)
{{ done}} -- Salix alba ( talk): 04:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1167 days ago on 21 February 2021) Khiikiat ( talk) 20:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1245 days ago on 5 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1223 days ago on 27 December 2020) Open way longer than necessary, and is pretty short. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1222 days ago on 27 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1163 days ago on 25 February 2021) Heart (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1398 days ago on 4 July 2020) (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, FASTILY 00:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1222 days ago on 28 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 02:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
(Initiated 1339 days ago on 2 September 2020) Need formal closure of the ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#user:Za-ari-masen_POV_pushing,_removing_citations,_and_referenced_texts_and_general_WP:DE since a topic ban was proposed and it saw participation by more than a dozen editors. Orientls ( talk) 08:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1399 days ago on 4 July 2020) Pretty polarised response on this one. Can I request an experienced closer close the discussion? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1362 days ago on 9 August 2020) Would an uninvolved editor or admin please assist in closing the discussion? PackMecEng ( talk) 03:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1315 days ago on 26 September 2020) 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 America 1000 17:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1337 days ago on 3 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion and close it? -- Johnosaunders ( talk) 23:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1366 days ago on 6 August 2020) Nardog ( talk) 06:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1314 days ago on 27 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1359 days ago on 13 August 2020)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)
(Initiated 1319 days ago on 22 September 2020) – Asking for closure of this discussion, please. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 08:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1427 days ago on 6 June 2020) Would an uninvolved editor or admin please evaluate consensus in this discussion? Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 10:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1393 days ago on 9 July 2020) 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)
Collapsed side discussion. starship .paint ( talk) 01:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
(Initiated 1366 days ago on 6 August 2020) Nardog ( talk) 06:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1362 days ago on 10 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1360 days ago on 12 August 2020) 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)
Collapsed side discussion Crossroads -talk- 03:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
(Initiated 1360 days ago on 12 August 2020) Should be closed by an uninvolved experienced editor. Orientls ( talk) 07:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1354 days ago on 18 August 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309 § 112.ua? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 02:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1347 days ago on 25 August 2020) the vote result has already been reached -- Michaelelijahtanuwijaya ( talk) 08:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1345 days ago on 27 August 2020) 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'sguy ( talk) 00:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1344 days ago on 28 August 2020) Needs to be assessed regarding two questions. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 18:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1345 days ago on 27 August 2020) 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. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 00:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1335 days ago on 6 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion, which has been relisted three times already? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 05:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1312 days ago on 29 September 2020) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1499 days ago on 25 March 2020) As an involved editor, would like this merge discussion to be formally closed. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 12:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1461 days ago on 2 May 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1400 days ago on 2 July 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1399 days ago on 4 July 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1378 days ago on 25 July 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1351 days ago on 20 August 2020) A consensus appears to have been reached, but request that an uninvolved editor review it. Thanks. — Ojorojo ( talk) 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1331 days ago on 9 September 2020) Requesting closure of the merge discussion please. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 11:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1315 days ago on 25 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 03:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1308 days ago on 2 October 2020) Should this discussion be closed as synonymous to Talk:Kenosha_unrest#Split_proposed? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 22:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1354 days ago on 18 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1332 days ago on 8 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1335 days ago on 6 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1353 days ago on 19 August 2020) Could an experienced Wikipedian please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1337 days ago on 4 September 2020) RFC has ended. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1344 days ago on 27 August 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 01:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1342 days ago on 30 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1335 days ago on 5 September 2020) Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313#RFC:_HuffPost
This discussion was archived without closure. 192.76.8.89 ( talk) 18:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1325 days ago on 16 September 2020) Please would an uninvolved person please bring a formal end to this RFC. Thank you. Tyrroi ( talk) 15:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1360 days ago on 12 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1341 days ago on 31 August 2020) Closure is requested of this discussion. (It was an RfC.) Crossroads -talk- 16:25, 11 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)
(Initiated 1298 days ago on 13 October 2020) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 13:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1308 days ago on 3 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus of this close review? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1312 days ago on 29 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1320 days ago on 21 September 2020) When appropriate, would an uninvolved editor please close this RFC?-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 17:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1318 days ago on 23 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- OrderOftheNerds ( talk) 17:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1317 days ago on 23 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1317 days ago on 24 September 2020) Seems to be a clear consensus to me, but closure was disputed. -- Beland ( talk) 06:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1415 days ago on 18 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 20:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1433 days ago on 31 May 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)
(Initiated 1401 days ago on 2 July 2020) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1376 days ago on 26 July 2020) -sche ( talk) 00:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1314 days ago on 27 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1303 days ago on 8 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1330 days ago on 10 September 2020) Just a few participants with an outcome that is unclear. The Banner talk 09:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1393 days ago on 10 July 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1372 days ago on 31 July 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1296 days ago on 14 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1374 days ago on 28 July 2020) I suspect that the consensus is to delete, but I'm not 100% sure. My only participation has been tagging an unsigned comment. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1338 days ago on 3 September 2020) I think this should be closed as Keep. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1324 days ago on 17 September 2020) All participants have voted to keep and purge the subcategories. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1323 days ago on 18 September 2020) Apparent consensus is to merge to the parent category. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1318 days ago on 22 September 2020) There is consensus to rename the category. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1316 days ago on 24 September 2020) Consensus is most probably to merge. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1286 days ago on 25 October 2020)
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)
(Initiated 1283 days ago on 27 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1285 days ago on 25 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1278 days ago on 1 November 2020) Could someone please review Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election#Now that it's November, when should we move?? 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)
(Initiated 1352 days ago on 20 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1299 days ago on 11 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1316 days ago on 24 September 2020) I believe the consensus is to merge into The Thirteen Colonies tree. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1316 days ago on 25 September 2020) Consensus to rename. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1297 days ago on 14 October 2020) Discussion has lasted nearly a month and opposition is unanimous. 207.161.86.162 ( talk) 08:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1311 days ago on 30 September 2020) There is consensus to rename. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1311 days ago on 30 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1284 days ago on 27 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 23:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1329 days ago on 12 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1393 days ago on 10 July 2020) 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 London 11:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1413 days ago on 20 June 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1369 days ago on 2 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1305 days ago on 6 October 2020) Could an experienced editor analyse and close this discussion? ─ The Aafī ( talk) 11:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
(Initiated 1310 days ago on 1 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1295 days ago on 15 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1268 days ago on 12 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1304 days ago on 6 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1336 days ago on 5 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1319 days ago on 21 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1327 days ago on 13 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1685 days ago on 22 September 2019) 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)
(Initiated 1286 days ago on 25 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1281 days ago on 30 October 2020) 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| contribs) 03:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1335 days ago on 6 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1297 days ago on 13 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1320 days ago on 21 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 03:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1289 days ago on 21 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1281 days ago on 29 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1275 days ago on 4 November 2020) It seems like there is a consensus in that discussion. -- Delasse ( talk) 11:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1269 days ago on 10 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 22:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1267 days ago on 13 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1322 days ago on 18 September 2020) There is also related discussion at talk:Kyiv. — Michael Z. 19:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1317 days ago on 23 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1310 days ago on 1 October 2020) Would appreciate a quick hand closing this. Thanks. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1309 days ago on 2 October 2020) Requesting an experience editor or admin to close this please. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 08:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1301 days ago on 10 October 2020) 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 · c) buidhe 21:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1286 days ago on 25 October 2020) Could an uninvolved editor close this please? Thanks. Mgasparin ( talk) 01:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1285 days ago on 25 October 2020) Could an uninvolved editor close this RfC? Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1276 days ago on 3 November 2020) An uninvolved editor is appreciated; thanks. George Ho ( talk) 03:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1264 days ago on 15 November 2020) Consensus should be easy to evaluate, but a formal close was requested. ( t · c) buidhe 13:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1313 days ago on 28 September 2020) Is there consensus against the proposal, or should it be relisted per the last comment? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1283 days ago on 28 October 2020) Could an uninvolved experienced editor please review Talk:French Revolution##RFC:_Second_paragraph_of_lede? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1361 days ago on 10 August 2020)
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 ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Tag bombing) -- StoyanStoyanov80 ( talk) 22:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
anoother opinion. Please, see WP:thirdopinion to request another opinion. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1256 days ago on 24 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 00:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1337 days ago on 3 September 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)
(Initiated 1303 days ago on 8 October 2020) Can someone neutral (doesn't need to be an admin) close this? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC) {{ done}} AIRcorn (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1345 days ago on 26 August 2020) 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)
When an RfC is used to resolve a dispute, the resolution is determined the same way as for any other discussion: the participants in the discussion determine what they have agreed on and try to implement their agreement.Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
(Initiated 1274 days ago on 6 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1264 days ago on 16 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion, which has now been relisted thrice? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 01:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1283 days ago on 28 October 2020) A discussion about whether or not the article should be merged went down. However, there are multiple opinions.
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)
(Initiated 1412 days ago on 21 June 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1345 days ago on 26 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1310 days ago on 1 October 2020) It's been open two months and very discussion has taken place of late. -- Calidum 18:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1256 days ago on 24 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1275 days ago on 5 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1263 days ago on 16 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1303 days ago on 7 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1292 days ago on 19 October 2020) (Initiated 1334 days ago on 7 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1264 days ago on 16 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1356 days ago on 15 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1320 days ago on 21 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 23:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1305 days ago on 6 October 2020) Requesting an uninvolved administrator assessment of consensus here. Thanks, Neutrality talk 02:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1308 days ago on 3 October 2020) 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. — MarkH21 talk 20:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1303 days ago on 8 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1232 days ago on 17 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1229 days ago on 20 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1307 days ago on 3 October 2020) Please come and close this move review. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1288 days ago on 22 October 2020) Can someone please evaluate the consensus at Talk:TikTok#RfC on "Chinese", 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)
(Initiated 1247 days ago on 3 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1292 days ago on 19 October 2020)
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)
(Initiated 1286 days ago on 24 October 2020) Please come and close this move review. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1284 days ago on 27 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1809 days ago on 20 May 2019) A stale split discussion. Matthew hk ( talk) 19:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1393 days ago on 9 July 2020) Consensus seems fairly clear, but lack of a formal closure on this one has resulted in the issue being (very unclearly) rehashed at " Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity", so this would clearly benefit from a written close. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1286 days ago on 24 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please assess consensus at this design-related discussion? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1304 days ago on 6 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1272 days ago on 7 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1272 days ago on 8 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1274 days ago on 6 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 21:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1264 days ago on 15 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 00:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1474 days ago on 20 April 2020) [or (Initiated 1497 days ago on 27 March 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1271 days ago on 8 November 2020) 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#Changing_'London'_to_'Greater_London' Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Europe_and_North_Asia Wikipedia: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)
(Initiated 1261 days ago on 19 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1263 days ago on 16 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? ― Ætoms talk 23:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1288 days ago on 22 October 2020) 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. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1280 days ago on 31 October 2020) Could an uninvolved editor close this RfC? No votes since November 16. Thank you. starship .paint ( talk) 13:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1254 days ago on 26 November 2020) We meed an official closure of this expired RFC. GoodDay ( talk) 16:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1257 days ago on 23 November 2020) Could an editor please review consensus at this discussion? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1340 days ago on 31 August 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1340 days ago on 1 September 2020) We need an administrator to close this expired RFC. -- Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 10:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1239 days ago on 11 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1304 days ago on 6 October 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1242 days ago on 8 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 2570 days ago on 20 April 2017) It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could assess the merge/rewrite proposal at Talk:Sha Tin New Town#Merger proposal. Matthew hk ( talk) 08:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1639 days ago on 7 November 2019) It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could assess the merge proposal for some Dutch newspapers at Talk:NRC Handelsblad#Proposed merge with Algemeen Handelsblad and Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant. Klbrain ( talk) 01:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1521 days ago on 4 March 2020) It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could assess the merge/rewrite proposal at Talk:Sha Tin#Parallel article - Sha Tin - Sha Tin New Town - Sha Tin District. Matthew hk ( talk) 08:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1212 days ago on 7 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1261 days ago on 18 November 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#The Canary? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 23:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1270 days ago on 9 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1263 days ago on 16 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1240 days ago on 9 December 2020) RFC proposing merger of Newsmax Media to Newsmax due to redundancy. IHateAccounts ( talk) 01:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1231 days ago on 19 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1525 days ago on 29 February 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1259 days ago on 21 November 2020) Would appreciate if someone uninvolved could assess and close this. Avilich ( talk) 20:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1234 days ago on 15 December 2020) Not a difficult one, but probably needs a formal close for other reasons. —valereee ( talk) 00:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1257 days ago on 22 November 2020) I believe this discussion has run its course and there is rough consensus. Mdewman6 ( talk) 21:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1307 days ago on 3 October 2020) 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. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 01:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1260 days ago on 19 November 2020) – ask that this be closed as soon as possible. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1249 days ago on 30 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1237 days ago on 13 December 2020) Need an uninvolved editor to close the merge discussion of non-notable private (subsidiary) company . Matthew hk ( talk) 19:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1403 days ago on 29 June 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1250 days ago on 30 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1211 days ago on 7 January 2021) Please close this AfD discussion.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 23:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1257 days ago on 23 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1238 days ago on 12 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1250 days ago on 30 November 2020) JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 16:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1204 days ago on 14 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1470 days ago on 24 April 2020) Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 5#File:The Terror of War.jpg 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)
(Initiated 1397 days ago on 6 July 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 03:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1276 days ago on 3 November 2020) requesting a closure on a discussion which affects all browser tabs of English Wikipedia. — andrybak ( talk) 11:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1235 days ago on 14 December 2020) requesting a closure on the RM. Matthew hk ( talk) 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1230 days ago on 20 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1219 days ago on 30 December 2020) JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 20:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 6698 days ago on 31 December 2005) 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)
(Initiated 1220 days ago on 30 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
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 applyProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1202 days ago on 17 January 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1217 days ago on 1 January 2021) Should be a straightforward close, but needs doing. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 09:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1196 days ago on 23 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1234 days ago on 16 December 2020) 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. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 13:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1440 days ago on 24 May 2020) Vigorous discussion, closing would be good for future reference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#Scriptural texts (WP:RSPSCRIPTURE). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1248 days ago on 1 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1196 days ago on 23 January 2021) The RfC was archived without being closed. Surtsicna ( talk) 15:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1351 days ago on 21 August 2020) 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#Use of the English name (and acronym) for this organisation. 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)
(Initiated 1349 days ago on 22 August 2020) I am involved in the discussion, but closure is easy-peasy. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1324 days ago on 16 September 2020) Need a decision at this reassessment. Completing the close can be a little bit complicated so I can do that part if needed. AIRcorn (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1189 days ago on 30 January 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1202 days ago on 17 January 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1230 days ago on 19 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1220 days ago on 30 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1219 days ago on 30 December 2020) Discussion has died down, but consensus is unclear. ― Tartan357 Talk 19:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1283 days ago on 28 October 2020) JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 18:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1226 days ago on 24 December 2020) Could an uninvolved editor please review and close the RfC? Thanks, Some1 ( talk) 21:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1198 days ago on 21 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1310 days ago on 30 September 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1183 days ago on 4 February 2021) Discussion went stale for almost a week. Don't know when newer comments will arrive. George Ho ( talk) 18:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1180 days ago on 7 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1261 days ago on 18 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review and close? BC1278 ( talk) 19:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1279 days ago on 31 October 2020) This one has been lingering for awhile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1265 days ago on 15 November 2020) – ask that this be closed as soon as possible. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1221 days ago on 29 December 2020) Could an uninvolved experienced editor close this? Thanks. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 14:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1220 days ago on 30 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1218 days ago on 1 January 2021) Discussion on placing the maintenance tag for large articles on the article. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1171 days ago on 16 February 2021)
Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1202 days ago on 16 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1177 days ago on 10 February 2021) Requesting an uninvolved editor to comment and close this discussion.-- Sakiv ( talk) 23:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1181 days ago on 7 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 23:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1194 days ago on 24 January 2021) Requesting an approval of a consensus from third party or closing for a completed RfC. Oliszydlowski ( talk) 05:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1212 days ago on 6 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1284 days ago on 26 October 2020) Merge proposal that has been open for almost 4 months now. Chlod ( say hi!) 00:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1225 days ago on 24 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1245 days ago on 4 December 2020) 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. -- Mhhossein talk 03:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
"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)."
(Initiated 1242 days ago on 8 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1225 days ago on 24 December 2020) (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)
(Initiated 1218 days ago on 1 January 2021) Requesting closure of this MOS question.-- Trystan ( talk) 14:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1209 days ago on 10 January 2021) Consensus appears to be leaning towards one article, but there is an added complication in whether the article itself should be renamed. — Czello 19:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1236 days ago on 13 December 2020) RFC proposing merger of Newsmax TV to Newsmax due to redundancy. IHateAccounts ( talk) 01:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1209 days ago on 9 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1236 days ago on 14 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1238 days ago on 12 December 2020) Controversial topic, will need a proper closing when the time comes. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 16:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1224 days ago on 25 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1155 days ago on 4 March 2021) Please review this and close Talk:Daihatsu Rocky#Requested move 5 March 2021 Quattro (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1161 days ago on 27 February 2021) JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 20:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1185 days ago on 2 February 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1521 days ago on 3 March 2020) 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#Proposed merge of List of names for cannabis strains into List of names for cannabis. The last contribution was in mid-January. Klbrain ( talk) 17:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1216 days ago on 3 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1215 days ago on 3 January 2021) Requesting an uninvolved editor to comment and close the discussion, Thanks. – Davey2010 Talk 17:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1183 days ago on 5 February 2021) Thirty days have lapsed, just needs formal closure from an uninvolved editor. LM2000 ( talk) 14:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1197 days ago on 21 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1185 days ago on 3 February 2021) Could someone please close this discussion at WT:FAC regarding an addition to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria? Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1243 days ago on 7 December 2020) Has been open since December 7 2020. Khirurg ( talk) 04:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1204 days ago on 14 January 2021) Hi, can somebody neutral close the 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? request for comment discussion, please? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1204 days ago on 15 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1194 days ago on 24 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1187 days ago on 31 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1179 days ago on 8 February 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1179 days ago on 9 February 2021) Requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
" {{ done}} Go Phightins ! 23:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1170 days ago on 17 February 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1231 days ago on 19 December 2020) Requesting closure on this one. Only 2 votes. It's been a while. TanookiKoopa ( talk) 21:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 12:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)(Initiated 1173 days ago on 15 February 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1238 days ago on 12 December 2020) No discussion in over a month. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 03:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1384 days ago on 18 July 2020) Responses are infrequent but seem to clearly trend in one direction. I'd prefer a formal closure before commencing the merge. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1172 days ago on 16 February 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1157 days ago on 3 March 2021) – Nearly 8 days since last relisted. Please either close or relist. Linguist111 talk 19:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1468 days ago on 26 April 2020) Could an uninvolved editor review the conensus for a merge between DIY ethic and Do it yourself at Talk:Do it yourself#Proposed merge of DIY ethic into Do it yourself. Klbrain ( talk) 09:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1213 days ago on 6 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1217 days ago on 1 January 2021) Been open for almost a month and a half. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 16:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1266 days ago on 13 November 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1210 days ago on 9 January 2021). This is about whether to include an antisemitism themed sidebar in the Parler app article. -
Daveout
(talk) 18:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 23:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 03:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)(Initiated 1145 days ago on 15 March 2021) – 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)
(Initiated 1225 days ago on 25 December 2020) – Related discussions, most of them leading up to the RfC, mainly at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#Swiss-Radio-and-TV "outing" of Chopin (and some subsequent sections on that talk page); and at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 200#Frédéric Chopin. Uninvolved closure seems necessary. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:00, 26 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)
(Initiated 1222 days ago on 28 December 2020) No consensus reached, but some policy oversight needed. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@ BD2412:: 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)
(Initiated 1169 days ago on 18 February 2021) Please close the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Page mover/delete-redirect#RFC on granting delete-redirect to page movers. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1184 days ago on 4 February 2021) – please close this Move review discussion. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 16:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1172 days ago on 15 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 00:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1157 days ago on 2 March 2021) A closure here does not seem too controversial. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 00:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1158 days ago on 1 March 2021) 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#Request_for_comment:_lead_sentence Eccekevin ( talk) 22:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1206 days ago on 13 January 2021) Open since 13 January 2021, already relisted twice. Frietjes ( talk) 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1190 days ago on 28 January 2021) Went stale for at least two weeks after last comment. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1183 days ago on 4 February 2021) Needs uninvolved editor to close this. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1218 days ago on 1 January 2021) I would appreciate of someone can formally close this.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 18:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1186 days ago on 2 February 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1159 days ago on 28 February 2021) Heart (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1138 days ago on 21 March 2021) Talk:Derek_Chauvin#Splitting_proposal -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1198 days ago on 20 January 2021) 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)
(Initiated 1171 days ago on 17 February 2021) - 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)
(Initiated 1169 days ago on 19 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1160 days ago on 28 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 02:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1146 days ago on 14 March 2021) 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. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1151 days ago on 9 March 2021) There have been a couple of requests for closure of WP:AN#Review of DRV closures by King of Hearts - 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)
(Initiated 1205 days ago on 14 January 2021) Need not involved editor to determinate the consensus of the Rfc and its mother thread. Matthew hk ( talk) 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1194 days ago on 24 January 2021) Could an admin please close the discussion at talk:Main_Page/Archive_200#Adding_a_link_to_the_Teahouse_in_the_“Other_areas_of_Wikipedia”_section to determine the consensus and implement the necessary changes? Thanks, Interstellarity ( talk) 17:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1176 days ago on 12 February 2021) – Was relisted from a DRV and appears to have not made it into the normal system. Hobit ( talk) 13:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1159 days ago on 1 March 2021) 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)
{{ done}} -- Salix alba ( talk): 04:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1167 days ago on 21 February 2021) Khiikiat ( talk) 20:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1245 days ago on 5 December 2020) 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)
(Initiated 1223 days ago on 27 December 2020) Open way longer than necessary, and is pretty short. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1222 days ago on 27 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1163 days ago on 25 February 2021) Heart (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1398 days ago on 4 July 2020) (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, FASTILY 00:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1222 days ago on 28 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 02:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)