User:Eggishorn/RfC log/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Operation Castor#RfC: Result

There has been edit-warring on the article over the overwhelming consensus in the RfC, and the edit-warrior's latest edit summary is "you must follow process, RFC requires formal closure, any change can only be made based on the RFC result". Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please help closing this RfC, as it has expired now. Some participants have required an official closure. (Initiated 2741 days ago on 21 November 2016) Dino nam (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
{{Resolved}} Closed with consensus to delete victory/defeat descriptor (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mia Khalifa#Clear Censorship of Her Christian Identity

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Mia Khalifa#Clear Censorship of Her Christian Identity (Initiated 2765 days ago on 28 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC) {{Resolved}} Closed with consensus to Oppose inclusion (non-admin closure)Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas MacArthur#Infobox

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Douglas MacArthur#Infobox (Initiated 2758 days ago on 4 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed with consensus for second alternative (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the RfC, Eggishorn (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Karl Wolff#Awards removal

The talk page conversation has gotten way off topic and out of control with one or two editors keeping this alive with repeated posts about the merits of having award lists on Wikipedia. I tried to archive this myself, before understanding the specific rules about Requests for Closures, and it was immediately un-archived with more off topic posts about how Wikipedia should not have certain award lists. The talk page conversation has strayed away from the subject of the article and a lot of users have given up with the same people who are going around and around with the same posts. Can an uninvolved individual close and archive this. I would also recommend watching it for a short time afterwards as there is a high chance one of the original editors may try to unarchive it and keep the debate alive. (Initiated 2712 days ago on 20 December 2016)-O.R.Comms 14:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as moot after awards moved to separate article. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Which is the better statement?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Which is the better statement? (Initiated 2767 days ago on 26 October 2016)? Please consider the closed RfCs Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4#RfC: Is the language biased? and Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4#Does a "major" role need to be cited as such by reliable sources? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

{{done}} Consensus against using term "major" without support. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Goa Opinion Poll#RfC: Referendum Suggestion

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Goa Opinion Poll#RfC: Referendum Suggestion (Initiated 2742 days ago on 20 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Consensus against new name has remained unchanged for three weeks. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Television content rating systems#RfC: Should we add a new category in the comparison table?

{{resolved}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Television content rating systems#RfC: Should we add a new category in the comparison table? (Initiated 2771 days ago on 22 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This RfC was closed (non-admin closure) on 17 December 2016 by SlitherioFan2016 Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the RfC, Eggishorn (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey (Initiated 2790 days ago on 3 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

{{Done}}
Thank you for closing the RfC, Eggishorn (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Clinton Foundation#RFC: Caracol Industrial Park

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Clinton Foundation#RFC: Caracol Industrial Park (Initiated 2772 days ago on 21 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as no consensus after 90 days (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Marriage#End

Needs closure from uninvolved editor.(Initiated 2761 days ago on 1 November 2016) Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In looking it over, a closure at this point could only come out "no consensus". Of the options presented only two have enough support to consider; the first of these has about as much opposition as support (as of this writing), and the other has less support (despite lack of active opposition) than the option that has both noteworthy support and opposition. So, they kind of just cancel each other out, especially given that sometimes the same parties are supporting/opposing multiple options. The matter is one of editorial judgement, not policy or source analysis. An obvious option is also missing: that the matter should be left to editorial judgement on a per-article basis. It may be more practical to re-RfC this with combined and clarified options, and "advertise" the discussion neutrally at WP:VPP and if necessary WP:CENT. While the matter is "minor" in the sense of impact on an article, it potentially affects every bio article about a married person, except in cases where the marriage is still extant along with the parties to it and there was only one marriage. This means it would have major site-wide impact despite the narrowness of the quetsion, and thus that consensus should be quite clear before it is acted upon.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I concur with SMcCandlish here: this RfC has potential high impact and it needs much wider participation before a consensus can emerge (I count less than a dozen editors chiming in). Suggest a relisting with wider advertising. — JFG talk 21:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
{{done}} Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:South West Trains#Request For Comment about the service pattern table and extra content

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:South West Trains#Request For Comment about the service pattern table and extra content (Initiated 2763 days ago on 30 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

{{done}} There are only three definite opinions expressed, and two conditional opinions. Per WP:CONSENSUS, this level of participation is not enough to override wider guidelines such as WP:NTT, especially given the complete lack of participation over the last 8 weeks. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:The Stooges (album)#RfC: Should "rock and roll" be linked in the infobox?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Stooges (album)#RfC: Should "rock and roll" be linked in the infobox? (Initiated 2732 days ago on 30 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I looked into closing this, but didn't feel comfortable based upon the information presented so I did a little research and added my own vote. I think I added enough material that this should be easier to close now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
{{done}} (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the RfC, Eggishorn (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Access locks: Visual Design RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC (Initiated 2764 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

{{done}} Preferences were in favor of a Green-Blue-Red, open-dashed-closed shackle, dotted-half full-full lock image (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the RfC, DarjeelingTea (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Milky Way#Request for comment

(Initiated 2713 days ago on 18 December 2016) Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC. Best Polyamorph (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • done Dan Koehl (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry but it was not done. I asked for the consensus to be assessed. So please could an uninvolved editor close this properly. Many thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
{{done}} non-involved editor closing as no consensus to overturn previous discussions (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC (Initiated 2764 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as only partial consensus on some sub-sections, and no clear consensus on overall behavior. Please see close message for further details. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the RfC, Eggishorn (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016#Request for Comment: Should Kurt Evans be listed as "Failed to Qualify"?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016#Request for Comment: Should Kurt Evans be listed as "Failed to Qualify"? (Initiated 2729 days ago on 3 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

{{done}} Three-editor non-involved editor verbose NAC. See talk page for reasoning. @Tazerdadog and Cunard: (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy#"Official" accounts representing individuals as opposed to groups

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#"Official" accounts representing individuals as opposed to groups (Initiated 2728 days ago on 4 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

{{done}} Consensus against preventative automatic blocking of these usernames. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:New York#RFC: Should the lead feature information about New York City over information about New York State

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New York#RFC: Should the lead feature information about New York City over information about New York State (Initiated 2718 days ago on 14 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

{{done}} closed as consensus in favor of reducing emphasis on NYC. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger#RfC about the relevance of several aspects mentioned in the article about this crime

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger#RfC about the relevance of several aspects mentioned in the article about this crime (Initiated 2719 days ago on 13 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed as no consensus for inclusion of proposed points. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy? (Initiated 2714 days ago on 18 December 2016)? Listing after a request on my talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

{{done}} closed with consensus that "murder" is not necessarily a violation of NPOV (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy? (Initiated 2714 days ago on 18 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

{{Done}} by Eggishorn, as this was also requested two sections above. Pppery 19:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Grace VanderWaal

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus? (Initiated 2688 days ago on 13 January 2017) --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion now archived at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Grace VanderWaal. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
{{done}} closed with partial consensus (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Radha Madhav Dham#RFC: Should an invocation at a county court be mentioned in the article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Radha Madhav Dham#RFC: Should an invocation at a county court be mentioned in the article? (Initiated 2715 days ago on 17 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

{{done}} Due to extremely limited participation, closed as no consensus. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Saudi Arabia#RFC: Birthplace of Islam and Arabs

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Saudi Arabia#RFC: Birthplace of Islam and Arabs (Initiated 2704 days ago on 28 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed with clear consensus against original text, and rough consensus for Zero's suggested replacement text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 63#RfC on the use of two film lists as sources

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 63#RfC on the use of two film lists as sources (Initiated 2710 days ago on 22 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

{{done}} Closed with consensus to not use the lists as sources of critical opinion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the discussion, Eggishorn (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Proposal: AfD with no participants should be relisted indefinitely, not closed, until there is at least one other participant

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Counter-proposal: Treating these like PRODs

Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus of this RfC? (Initiated 2735 days ago on 27 November 2016) Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a big one, which looks like consensus to me but I'm WP:INVOLVED. Would some kind soul go through the closing motions? (Initiated 2744 days ago on 18 November 2016) — JFG talk 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
{{done}}

Talk:Tomas Gorny#Request for Comment [RfC]: Should an article written by a Forbes staff writer be kept?

Would an uninvolved sysop assess the consensus at Talk:Tomas Gorny#Request for Comment [RfC]: Should an article written by a Forbes staff writer be kept?? This RfC (Initiated 2675 days ago on 25 January 2017) needs closed. I should note that there are SPA accounts that joined the discussion in order to add a comment to delete the source. Eliko007 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Note:The above user is one of the series of accounts which have recently emerged and are adamant in adding a bunch of puffery to the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 Done: Consensus for removal of the citation is clear and reasonably based in policy. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: article later deleted on similar grounds Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)#Request for comment 2017

Would an uninvoled and experienced editor kindly assess the consensus here. (Initiated 2693 days ago on 8 January 2017) Apologies in advance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved and experienced editor assess the consensus ? Thanks, --Carliertwo (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 Done: rough consensus for inclusion of the proposed material. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Banjica concentration camp#RfC about the use of Cohen's Serbia's Secret War

Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? (Initiated 2693 days ago on 7 January 2017) Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done: Closed as rough consensus for considering this book a reliable source as it relates to the article subject. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Germany#RFC:_Adding_Nazi_Germany_to_Infobox

Needs close from uninvolved editor. (Initiated 2670 days ago on 30 January 2017) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs) 11:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done: Closed with consensus to remove the "Formation" section entirely. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTubers#Propose simplifying inclusion criterion

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of YouTubers#Propose simplifying inclusion criterion (Initiated 2675 days ago on 26 January 2017)? I started the 2011 discussion at Talk:List of YouTubers/Archive 5#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities, so I am not closing this discussion even though the consensus is clear. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done: There is clear consensus for the proposed inclusion criteria. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Casey Affleck#RfC about details in Early Life section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Casey Affleck#RfC about details in Early Life section (Initiated 2698 days ago on 3 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done: Consensus against inclusion of ancestry information. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music#Images

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music#Images (Initiated 2696 days ago on 5 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done: Closed as no consensus due to low participation and lack of substantiative arguments on how images should be treated or on standards for inclusion/removal. Recommend a better-formulated RfC with definite options. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:International Justice Mission#Request for comment on placement of criticism

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Justice Mission#Request for comment on placement of criticism (Initiated 2634 days ago on 8 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted due to low participation. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done After relisting, the rough consensus supports incorporation of criticism where appropriate throughout the article instead of in one "Criticism" section. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template (Initiated 2627 days ago on 15 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no consensus for the proposal as written. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again) (Initiated 2610 days ago on 1 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed with clear consensus for grouping and rough consensus for grouping into tenure and highlight sections. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:European Graduate School#RfC about use primary sources in section "Status"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:European Graduate School#RfC about use primary sources in section "Status" (Initiated 2613 days ago on 29 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no consensus for altering the inclusion of the sources listed. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive

Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2593 days ago on 18 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Re-requested closure at WP:AN on assumption that more than one closer may be needed. --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Joint closure authored by myself and Tazerdadog posted with multi-part conclusion. See close for full details. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft talk:US Presidents navbox#RfC about whether the draft is appropriate for a merge

Requesting an uninvolved editor to kindly assess consensus about the draft merge of {{US Presidents}} and {{US Presidential Administrations}}, which strongly overlap each other. (Initiated 2602 days ago on 9 April 2017) This RfC is the continuation of a previous debate held at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Template:US Presidential Administrations (29 January – 3 March), following the process suggested by the closer. Thanks, — JFG talk 15:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed with rough consensus for Proposal C. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Lord North (disambiguation)#RfC about including all persons titled Lord North in the disambiguation

Needs an uninvolved closer, to assess the consensus. Thanks. (Initiated 2569 days ago on 12 May 2017)--Nevé–selbert 19:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done: Closed as no consensus in favor of double-disambiguation. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Abkhazia#Proposal for the Abkhazia Article

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abkhazia#Proposal for the Abkhazia Article (Initiated 2603 days ago on 8 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done: Closed as no consensus in favor of the intended proposal. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Plummer v. State/Archive 1#Request for Comment - Internet meme section - 1st revision

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Plummer v. State/Archive 1#Request for Comment - Internet meme section - 1st revision (Initiated 2591 days ago on 20 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed with consensus to include the majority of the proposed text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about the photo in the Capture and release of hostages section

Would like an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about the photo in the Capture and release of hostages section (Initiated 2578 days ago on 3 May 2017)? Thanks, David.moreno72 09:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed as in favor of including the picture of the monument. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus#Press Criticism - Wikipedia's Multiple Parallel Narratives

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Jesus#Press Criticism - Wikipedia's Multiple Parallel Narratives (Initiated 2581 days ago on 30 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no consensus for restructuring. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine#RfC: Proposed split

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine#RfC: Proposed split (Initiated 2592 days ago on 19 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed as clear consensus in favor of proposed changes. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Placement of expand language templates

I am requesting early closure of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Placement of expand language templates (Initiated 2532 days ago on 17 June 2017) which has turned into a slanging match. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

{{Done}} (non-admin closure) FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
previous close discussion
I have undone the close. It should be allowed to run the full 30 days, and should be given a proper close by an administrator. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Er, you didn't. All you did was remove the {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} templates that had been added by FleetCommand (talk · contribs). As far as the RFC system is concerned, it's still closed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Joefromrandb:While I am refraining from reverting your revertion; please don't reverse closes unilaterally.There were ample valid grounds for a snow close.And WP:AN is the appropriate venue for discussing closure-related problems!Winged Blades Godric 17:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Had an administrator closed it, I would in fact, have opened a discussion. I firmly disagree with "ample grounds for a snow close", and while I've no doubt it was done with the best of intentions, I firmly disagree with a non-administrator responding to a request for administrative action. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm an admin. Should I have closed it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Is that rhetorical? You know damn well you shouldn't have closed it. I didn't realize you were an admin. That renders my revert rather pointless. By the numbers it's 12–3. It was my hope that the closing admin would look past that, and actually adjudicate this based on actual arguments, which, if one ignores the handful of baseless votes, seem to be fairly even. One vote from an administrator, however, renders all other votes meaningless, right or wrong, and is, sadly, "ample grounds for a snow close". Joefromrandb (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was rhetorical. But if I hadn't already !voted, I could probably have closed it in order to stop the escalation which was already in WP:NPA territory. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Joefromrandb:--Whatever is posted at this noticeboard(which is a sub-board of WP:AN) is typically meant for administrators.But that does not exclude any editor from taking an action on the issues; esp. if that could be performed without the use of any tool specifically provided to the sysops.Also, see this RFC.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 08:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
It was clearly a malicious reversion. This reverting person is one of the only two people who disagrees with the others in that discussion. So, he is simply prolonging the inevitable as a last act of defiance before the consensus eventually changes Wikipedia to the way he does not like. I think a closure by an uninvolved editor must never be reversed by an involved editor, at least, not without a round of communication. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 15:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done As an editor with no prior involvement in the issue, I reviewed the RfC and the related prior discussions ne novo and find that the clear consensus for placement of these templates is at the top of the article. See close for full rationale. While I am confident experienced involved editors are familiar with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I am linking to this for those who may not have recently reviewed it. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Be bold#Proposal to add a sentence about page moves

Would someone please formally close this. Legobot removed the RfC template as lapsed after a month a few days ago, and it has yet to be closed. (Initiated 2564 days ago on 17 May 2017) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no consensus for proposed instruction. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Otto Warmbier#Request for comments dated 28 April 2017

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Otto Warmbier#Request for comments dated 28 April 2017 (Initiated 2583 days ago on 28 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted:-Winged Blades Godric 06:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done Closed with no consensus to remove "allegedly". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack#Request for comment on Theodore Postol's views and responsibility for the attack

Please, close this. (Initiated 2583 days ago on 28 April 2017). Erlbaeko (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack#Request for comment on Theodore Postol's views and responsibility for the attack (Initiated 2583 days ago on 28 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no consensus for the RfC as asked. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#RfC: Possible POV of §Authoritarian tendencies

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#RfC: Possible POV of §Authoritarian tendencies (Initiated 2567 days ago on 14 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Closed as moot; the section in question has been removed entirely. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC) updated Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Your closure is reverted, Eggishorn. May you please modify the "done" template, so the bot won't archive the request? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done again Closed with consensus to retain the POV tags but further specific remedies for other concerns expressed requires further focused discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bahá'í Faith#Request for Comment: Lead Section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bahá'í Faith#Request for Comment: Lead Section (Initiated 2564 days ago on 17 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed as moot due to consensus being previously implemented. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Vladimir Lenin#RfC regarding the parallel drawn between the cult of personality of Lenin, and that of George Washington

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Lenin#RfC regarding the parallel drawn between the cult of personality of Lenin, and that of George Washington (Initiated 2555 days ago on 26 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no consensus for removal of the challenged statement. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ethereum#RFC on lede paragraph

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ethereum#RFC on lede paragraph (Initiated 2560 days ago on 21 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no consensus for any one of the presented options. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about adding photo's in the armour section

(Initiated 2492 days ago on 28 July 2017) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about adding photo's in the armour section Thank you David.moreno72 12:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed with consensus to add one of the two images. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC: UK railway station disambiguation

(Initiated 2415 days ago on 12 October 2017) Getting on for a month old, and there hasn't been any new discussion for a couple of weeks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor asses the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC: UK railway station disambiguation?--Cúchullain t/c 16:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done Closed with consensus for Option D: Use Xxx railway station (Location) for all stations. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack#RfC on MILAN SCHREUER and DAN BILEFSKY article in New York Times

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack#RfC on MILAN SCHREUER and DAN BILEFSKY article in New York Times (Initiated 2391 days ago on 6 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed as the disputed text does not have consensus for inclusion as originally quoted. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:One America News Network#RfC about sentence describing coverage instructions of specific subjects by owner Charles Herring in the lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:One America News Network#RfC about sentence describing coverage instructions of specific subjects by owner Charles Herring in the lead (Initiated 2388 days ago on 9 November 2017)}}? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed as there is no consensus for inclusion of the questioned text in the lead. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6#Carl Benjamin news item

(Initiated 2267 days ago on 10 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6#Carl Benjamin news item? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Closed with a clear consensus to describe Carl Benjamin as an "Anti-feminist YouTuber". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:George Washington#Request for comment on whether or not the painting known as "Washington Crossing the Delaware" should be included in this article

(Initiated 2254 days ago on 23 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:George Washington#Request for comment on whether or not the painting known as "Washington Crossing the Delaware" should be included in this article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Closed with a clear consensus to retain the disputed image. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Snoop Dogg discography#Split

(Initiated 2257 days ago on 20 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Snoop Dogg discography#Split? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no consensus for splitting. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC on the original author

(Initiated 2257 days ago on 19 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC on the original author? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Closed with consensus to oppose naming an "author" for this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6#RfC: Header text

(Initiated 1807 days ago on 12 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 6#RfC: Header text? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Since it's been a month since a previous editor expressed interest in closing with no change, I've gone ahead and closed it with a rough consensus in favor of including the proposed text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Stamets#RfC about description of Paul Stamets in the lede

(Initiated 1724 days ago on 3 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Stamets#RfC about description of Paul Stamets in the lede? I am not closing this RfC as some of the supports are qualified supports. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a BLP with FRINGE issues, where there has been SOAP and COI problems. The RfC is a tad vague, but closure would help us move on. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Requesting help. The RfC is fuzzy and not in the formal process. Some closure would inform next steps. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 Done Closed with a clear consensus that the lede should describe the article subject as a "mycologist". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:White Croats#RfC about the splitting of the article "White Croats"

(Initiated 1775 days ago on 15 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White Croats#RfC about the splitting of the article "White Croats"? Thanks.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no consensus to make the proposed edits. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Sabine Weyand#Request for comments on perceived coat-rack issue

(Initiated 1811 days ago on 9 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sabine Weyand#Request for comments on perceived coat-rack issue? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Closed as moot due to the acceptance of the "newer" text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bell Media Radio#Streaming radio network affiliation?

(Initiated 1688 days ago on 9 October 2019) Would a non-involved editor/administrator please assess the consensus for this expired RfC, which Legobot dropped? There seems to be no opposition, but it would be nice to have this assessed, possibly wrapped in the optional RfC closure tags of your choice. Alternatively, if you know of a way to restart the RfC, that would be fine as well. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Legobot "dropped" it because thirty days had elapsed. WP:RFC#Restarting an RfC explains how an RfC may be extended. But if nobody (other than myself, who frankly doesn't care about the matter) commented there the first time, the chances of more people coming along are small. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Redrose64, Thanks, as a non-involved participant, can you close it as "no opposition" in more than a month? I just want something to go back on if I make the changes and it gets reverted, I can say that it was proposed without opposition—of course, someone is welcome to restart a new discussion, but at least we'd have some consensus determination on file. Doug Mehus  T·C 00:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 Done Closed as No opposition expressed. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers#RfC about the examples of local names

(Initiated 1706 days ago on 22 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers#RfC about the examples of local names? The RfC initiator wrote, "I stand by my decision to start this discussion until it is legitimately closed (preferably by an admin)" in response to an RfC participant writing, "This Rfc is not an Rfc; rather, it is a free-ranging discussion about how to improve a proposed new project subpage recommendation." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no consensus after nearly 3 months with extremely limited participation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Super Audio CD#Rfc: Meyer-Moran paper from 2007 in lead section

(Initiated 1709 days ago on 18 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Super Audio CD#Rfc: Meyer-Moran paper from 2007 in lead section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no consensus for either inclusion or exclusion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease#RfC: Redirects of "chronic bronchitis" and "emphysema"

(Initiated 1704 days ago on 23 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease#RfC: Redirects of "chronic bronchitis" and "emphysema"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Closed as rough consensus in favor of the redirects as proposed in Option 1.(non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Donji Kraji#Version of Article

(Initiated 1631 days ago on 5 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the situation at Talk:Donji_Kraji#Version of Article? Thanks, Ceha --Čeha (razgovor) 12:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donji Kraji#Request for Comments? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done Closed with no consensus to proceed with the proposed alternative version. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Khalida Jarrar#Request for outside comments

(Initiated 1614 days ago on 23 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Khalida Jarrar#Request for outside comments? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no consensus due to lack of participation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Gas van#Request for comment

(Initiated 1610 days ago on 26 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gas van#Request for comment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Closed with a clear consensus against the proposed sources and content. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship#RFC: Should these aspects of the Henry Neville authorship theory be included in the article

(Initiated 1598 days ago on 7 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship#RFC: Should these aspects of the Henry Neville authorship theory be included in the article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Closed with a consensus against inclusion of the disputed material. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Oswestry/Archive 1#RfC about the use of Welsh

(Initiated 1609 days ago on 28 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oswestry/Archive 1#RfC about the use of Welsh? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Closed with a clear consensus to include the Welsh language name. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Color Developing Agent 3 and Color Developing Agent 4

(Initiated 1595 days ago on 10 January 2020) I'm requesting that an experienced editor please advise on how to move forward with this merge proposal. Qono (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no quorum. Only two clear opinions were expressed and no further comments in the last 60 days. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#RfC: Should an infobox be added to the article: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

(Initiated 1601 days ago on 4 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#RfC: Should an infobox be added to the article: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? The consensus is clear but as this is a very contentious topic and discussion, I am not closing the RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 Done Closed with a clear preponderance of editors against an infobox on this article. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools' 3 Part 4

 Done(Initiated 1513 days ago on 1 April 2020) Would an administrator please assess the consensus at the discussions at this page? No rush on this, since it won't be needed until next April, but it should be done thoroughly, since there are (in my view) a lot of non-policy based responses that need to be discounted. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC) ......

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools' 3 Part 5

 Done(Initiated 1513 days ago on 1 April 2020) Would an administrator please assess the consensus at the discussions at this page? No rush on this, since it won't be needed until next April, but it should be done thoroughly, since there are (in my view) a lot of non-policy based responses that need to be discounted. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC) ......

Talk:Noël Coward#RfC on 1944 controversy

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Noël Coward#RfC on 1944 controversy (Initiated 2587 days ago on 24 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Closed with consensus against proposed text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Blumenthal#Restored comments on military service controversy to 2010 campaign section and Talk:Richard Blumenthal#Request for comments on where to place military service controversy

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Richard Blumenthal#Restored comments on military service controversy to 2010 campaign section and Talk:Richard Blumenthal#Request for comments on where to place military service controversy (Initiated 2390 days ago on 7 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This should be easier to close now, due to an additional !vote for the majority. Alsee (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done Closed with consensus for coverage in the U.S. Senate - 2010 election section. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:David Koch#Lede rfc

(Initiated 1730 days ago on 29 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Koch#Lede rfc? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Closed with no consensus to including the information in the lede.(non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about the MEK's appeal in its homeland

(Initiated 1736 days ago on 23 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about the MEK's appeal in its homeland? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Closed with no consensus ...established for making the proposed edits. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:U.S. state#Request for comment on state-equivalents

(Initiated 1727 days ago on 1 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:U.S. state#Request for comment on state-equivalents? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Closed as a rough consensus to oppose including these territories in the article. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: books in lead

(Initiated 1721 days ago on 6 September 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: books in lead? Thanks, ―Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Closed with a rough consensus to change the text and a narrow consensus to use Option D. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of music considered the worst#RFC for album inclusion

(Initiated 1728 days ago on 30 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of music considered the worst#RFC for album inclusion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Will do. ∯WBGconverse 03:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Are you doing? --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 Done} After relative silence on the prior close attempts, I have closed with a rough consensus to oppose these qualifications as written. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox film#RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?

(Initiated 1733 days ago on 26 August 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox film#RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Archived to Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 30#RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs? without closure. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 Done Unarchived to provide formal close as a rough consensus to judiciously credit additional composers. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: Do sources support calling Ngo's statements on the hammer attack "false"?

(Initiated 1718 days ago on 9 September 2019) RfC requesting an admin closing.  Thanks, Springee (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no consensus for the proposed inclusion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#MOS:TVIMAGE – explicitly allow (and maybe prefer?) show logos

(Initiated 1677 days ago on 21 October 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#MOS:TVIMAGE – explicitly allow (and maybe prefer?) show logos? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Closed with no consensus to implement the proposed change. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sixth Tone

(Initiated 1630 days ago on 6 December 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sixth Tone? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Clear consensus for Additional considerations apply. Not reliable for political information and probably reliable for non-political cultural and social information. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Grayzone

(Initiated 1624 days ago on 12 December 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Grayzone? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Closed with a clear consensus for either Option 3 or Option 4 and a rough consensus for Option 4. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The New Republic

(Initiated 1605 days ago on 31 December 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#RfC:_The_New_RepublicWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The New Republic? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Closed as clear consensus for Option 1 or Option 2 and a rough consensus for Option 1. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?

(Initiated 1610 days ago on 26 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Closed as no consensus achieved on the reliability of Paste. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:WikiLeaks#RfC on OPCW documents related to Douma chemical attack

(Initiated 1600 days ago on 5 January 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:WikiLeaks#RfC on OPCW documents related to Douma chemical attack? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Closed with a clear consensus against inclusion of the proposed text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Turning_Point_USA#RfC:_Concerning_removal_of_material_from_this_article

Not listed at ANRFC, close called for at BLPN

Closed as clear consensus is to remove the material about Lambert's separation from Students for Trump/Turning Point Action and subsequent actions. No consensus was able to be discerned about the acceptable text to include considering the purchase of Students for Trump/Turning Point Action by Turning Point USA. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Project Veritas#RfC on verifiability in ACORN section

(Initiated 1471 days ago on 13 May 2020) Can an uninvolved and politically neutral editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Project Veritas#RfC on verifiability in ACORN section? I would close it myself, but I am not doing so because of my COI. Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Closed with a clear consensus on statements 1, 3, and 4 and a rough consensus on statement 2 that the language challenged is not accepted. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:University of Pittsburgh#RfC about the description of the governance of this university

(Initiated 1535 days ago on 10 March 2020): Can a neutral editor please close this RfC? A bot removed the RfC template a while ago but the discussion was never formally resolved. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Although this has been opened for several months, it might be best to wait one more week; another editor pointed out that this would impact several other articles - other campuses of the same university - so I've just dropped a note about this RfC on the relevant Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I tried to close it, but found that an NC outcome wasn't ideal so I !voted instead. Anyone else want to try? Hobit (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done Closed as no consensus still after over four months with a recommendation that other dispute resolution venues be considered. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_on_CNN

Not requested on ANRFC, close requested within the RfC by multiple editors

 Done Closed under the snowball clause with immediate and overwhelming consensus that CNN new is generally reliable and that CNN opinion is adequately covered by existing policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mary_Shelley#Second_attempt_at_wanting_an_Infobox

Not requested at ANRFC, close requested at AN instead.

 Done Closed with an endorsement for an infobox based on the clear consensus of thread participants. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Political_endorsements#Rfc on part 2

Not requested at ANRFC, close requested within the RfC by multiple editors and at AN

 Done Speedy close per the Snowball Clause due to prior consensus established recently and lack of time before the RfC could be implemented and requested multiple times (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Douma_chemical_attack#RfC_about_US_government_delegation_visit_to_OPCW_investigation_team

(Initiated 1392 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)

 Done Closed with no consensus to include the proposed material. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 84#RfC (archdukes)

(Initiated 1413 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)

  • I've just been through that whole discussion and I can't discern any consensus at all. I left it unclosed because a "no consensus" close won't do anything to stop the disputes you mention, and someone else might want to try.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    • As with other RfCs that are basically a !voting exercise tacked onto the end of longer discussions, this one will probably need to be examined in the context of the threads that led up to it (I think the main one is also at NPOVN). From what I recall of this one, the policy arguments are very clear, versus some royalty wikiproject grousing that probably amounts to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:CONLEVEL issues, though I might have missed something. I haven't looked at it in months (but participated heavily at the time, so I'm involved). The overall gist is whether it is OR to extrapolate from what nobility title someone would have had if the title had not been abolished, and calling that person by that title in articles on WP (when the person doesn't make any such claim, and RS don't do it either). The answer seems pretty clear, though there's a lot of verbiage to wade through.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done Closed with a rough consensus that titles in pretense should not be generally used in article titles, infoboxes, etc. unless its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources demonstrates that a specific person is commonly named as such. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

Talk:Koala#Koala bear "inaccurate"

(Initiated 1356 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)

 Done Closed with a rough consensus to include "koala bear" in the lead with some form of indication that "bear" is biologically inexact. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Indian subcontinent#A very long RfC, I hope it doesn't get ignored

(Initiated 1340 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)

The RfC expired over a week ago. No one interested to close? Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 02:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
More than two weeks now. Is there no one interested to close this? Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 00:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm. I remember recieving strong rebuke for posting "invalid RfC" and "malformed RfC" in hours after posting the RfC. But, after dozens of editors including many long standing admins taking part in it... no one is interested to close it, not even as no consensus. It's been more than three weeks. Interesting. Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 21:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Aditya: you can see that there are a number of even older RfCs that have yet to be closed. I know it's frustrating to have waited three weeks after the length of the time of an RfC but, unfortunately, that's just the way some issues go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't mind waiting. But waiting with a feeling that this might never bear any fruit is what frustrates me. The dispute was already going for two months before the RfC, and had been going on and off for years. As far as I can see it takes much less time to make a real human baby than to resolve a dispute on the Wikipedia 😂. Thanks for the kind response. Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 19:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 Done Closed as no consensus on the inclusion of Afghanistan and Myanmar in the lead's definition and no consideration of the other issues raised. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies#RfC Superstitions in Muslim societies related questions

(Initiated 1355 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)

 Done Closed with a consensus to rename the article. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#RfC_about_removing_contentious_content_from_the_lede

(Initiated 1325 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)

 Done Closed with no consensus to remove the disputed text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#RfC: Misinformation visual

(Initiated 1433 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)

The conflict lasted since 14 may 2020. I reverted two more time. And then compromised for the image without text. Which was also reverted. I then stopped the edit war and still waiting for a consensus while the image and the controversial text is enforced in the page. Thanks for having a look at it. Iluvalar (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Iluvalar is topic banned from Covid-19 under general sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 Done Closed after re-analysis with a clear preponderance to Option #3 among those arguments that were policy-compliant. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_South_China_Morning_Post_(SCMP)|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309#RfC: South China Morning Post (SCMP)

(Initiated 1390 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)

 Done Unarchived and closed with a clear consensus in favor of Option #1 but a rough consensus that additional considerations apply at some higher rate than "normal". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Newsmax

(Initiated 1289 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)

 Done Snowball clause close per multiple request within the thread and the above. Clear consensus that Newsmax is at least "generally unreliable" and moderately-clear consensus that therefore Newsmax should be deprecated as a source. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Eggishorn/RfC_log/Archive_1&oldid=1169310496"