The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 North Korea crisis → 2017–19 North Korea crisis2017–19 North Korea crisis – It is 2019 now and the crisis has still not ended. 92.17.186.3 (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to North Korea nuclear crisis instead. Clearer overall description without the vague date range which doesn't really communicate anything. Most sources do not cite such a date range, but simply call it "North Korea crisis" or "North Korea nuclear crisis". -- Netoholic @ 12:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — even though it has already been done. As discussed before, there is no clear definition of what the "crisis" is, and there is no clear date range. Concerns about the North Korean nuclear program were raised back in the 1990s. There has been a detente for a whole year, and that seems to be continuing. We cannot extend the article indefinitely. No one has produced a source saying that there is a crisis in 2019.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's not a "crisis" if it has been going on for over a year. This article has evolved from a focused article on what appeared to be a crisis in 2017 into a never-ending news blog on current events involving the North Korean nuclear issue. I continue to believe this article should be deleted, with its content merged into other relevant articles, or at least refocused and renamed. The article also has multiple problems stemming from the fact that a few editors have expanded it beyond recognition. I haven't bothered trying to fix it because I don't think it should exist at all. Why waste my time? NPguy (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – There really hasn't been much of a crisis in the last few months anyways, and there isn't one now. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support — If it's over, then why is the date in the infobox for this event "8 April 2017 – present"? This implies that there is some significant recognition that this event still going on. So I suggest either moving it to "2017-19", or give it an end date sometime within 2018, if not simply "2018". Consider other articles covering multiple consecutive years in its title, like 1795–1820 in Western fashion, 1840–49 Atlantic hurricane seasons, 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, and none of which have dates in their titles different from their ACTUAL dates of occurrence, and many of them do have a hard, single year end date. If the North Korean Crisis is over, fine, keep it at "2017-18" then, and then change the article to reflect this. Otherwise, move it to "2017-19" if people feel that there is cause enough to believe that it could heat up again.... assuming it's still not at least warm. -- 76.14.39.175 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone would agree that the infobox should match the title, but that doesn't really help answer the question.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what crisis is ongoing has north korea done anything belligerent in the last few months? עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.