Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Closure requests. 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 main page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
2011
October 2011
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features
Done— closed by User:DeltaQuad (Northamerica1000(talk) 18:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)) - Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Nominating articles with unreliable sources for BLPPROD Done— closed by lifebaka++ 22:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Content dispute resolution
- Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs Done— closed by User:Armbrust (Northamerica1000(talk) 18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC))
- DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) or another admin, would you use Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security as a template for closing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features: Since all the discussions have been closed, the entire Main Page features RfC can be closed with an archive template. Cunard (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Statement to exclude Esports from this guideline? The last comment at this RfC was on 29 October 2011. Cunard (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Does Wikipedia need a “share” button? The RfC was initiated on 22 October 2011; the last comment was on 15 November 2011. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Graeme. Would you provide a closing rationale that summarizes the arguments of both sides? This will be very helpful to the participants and to people who review the discussion in the future. Cunard (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Disable WikiLove by default? The RfC was initiated on 28 October 2011; the last comment was on 15 November 2011. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Graeme. Would you provide a closing rationale that explains the arguments for why WikiLove should not be disabled by default? I ask for a few sentences summarizing their position and perhaps one or two that summarize the minority opposing viewpoint. Cunard (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Would appreciate an admin to close an informal discussion
Would someone please close the discussion here? A close was requested a week ago and it was archived without a response. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- If it hasn't been closed by tomorrow, I'll do it. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 08:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Done WormTT · (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Would someone close Talk:Ginsberg's theorem#RfC: Should this article be redirected to Wikiquote?? The bot's removal of the RfC tag somehow escaped my notice. Goodvac (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Help with closing a discussion
Hi. There is a discussion at Talk:Comparison of orbital launch systems#Restoring status quo (split). It has had no recent activity, and the discussion started last summer. As far as I can tell, no consensus was ever reached on the proposal. However, since I made a comment in that discussion I'm not sure that it is wiki-appropriate for me to attempt to close the discussion. Would someone who is not involved please take a look as see if it might be okay to close the discussion now? Or should it just be left open and never formally closed? Or something else entirely? Thanks. N2e (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have closed it so that discussion can move to the next section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Request to close RfC to promote Notability (astronomical objects) to guideline
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Discussion being kept open until December 3.
I started this RfC and proposal roughly a month ago. It's been 5 days since the last activity in the discussion. There appears to be a broad consensus for promotion, but it would be nice for an admin to assess the discussion. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment) I agree that there's little activity at it, but I disagree that there's consensus for promotion. Responses seemed to be divided between "sounds like a good way to clarify what's non-notable" and "no, per WP:NOTLAW and because nothing should modify/override WP:N", with more responses on the "oppose" side of the fence. Were I closing it, I'd close it as "no consensus". My main concern with closure is that it doesn't seem to have gotten many responses from the community at large compared to other policy RFCs, but that's a judgement call to be made by someone with more policy experience than I have. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I could re-post the discussion link on the village pump page for further comments, but other than that I'm not sure how to get more community comments. The RfC link has been on the Centralized Discussion template box for the whole month. Any suggestions? Concerning the support/oppose comments, not many of the "support" comments required replies. Several "oppose" comments did, and you'll see that at least two editors changed their vote after the replies. I do think a few of the "oppose" comments should be given less weight because of their general nature (e.g. "Oppose all SNGs" - this SNG shouldn't be penalized due to that philosophical position). Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I re-posted a request for additional comments at Village pump (policy). Perhaps closure should wait a few more days to see if more comments emerge.AstroCog (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have looked the discussion over. I think we should leave the discussion open to December 3 at the very least, which allows both the "1 month" and the "fair amount of time since the most recent bout of advertising" criteria to be fulfilled. Drop me a note on my talk page then, and I'll close the discussion then? NW (Talk) 19:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Request for uninvolved RfC closure
ResolvedThis request involving dispute resolution in the "santorum campaign" article has been posted in 3 different designated venues for almost a month and a half with no appropriate response thus far. The assistance of an uninvolved, experienced editor is now solicited here. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, done. Anomie⚔ 05:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Objectivist? The discussion has been open since 14 October 2011. Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- There is currently a discussion open on AN/I with regards to this RFC/U and the subject of it. --Blackmane (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- The RfC was closed by causa sui (talk · contribs), who placed an indefinite block on Objectivist (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alexsautographs? See also the unaddressed request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC/U needing attention, which was archived. Cunard (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Beeblebrox, for closing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin summarize the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editing and assess the consensus at the proposals? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done -- DQ (t) (e) 13:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, DQ. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Could someone close this one? thank you. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Armbrust. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Request close of Saint Thomas Christians merge proposal
There has been a proposal to merge Saint Thomas Christians and Syrian Malabar Nasrani going on for around a month and a half, and discussion ceased over a month ago. The merge will be a tricky one to perform though, and considering the antagonistic tone of some comments in the discussion, it would be good to have a concrete decision to merge before doing the work. In my opinion a clear consensus has been gained, but out of an abundance of caution, I would like the discussion to be closed by an administrator, or another user in good standing. Would anyone be willing to hop over to the page and do this? Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have moved this unresolved request from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive229 to this page. Cunard (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I was involved in the discussion, and I agree that the consensus for a merge seems to be clear, with virtually everyone agreeing that the two names are synonyms for the same group. I'm willing to do the work but I would like there to be a clear close decision, considering how much will be required and the sensitivities involved.--Cúchullain t/c 15:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, SilkTork (talk · contribs), for closing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory? This RfC was discussed on this noticeboard before at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence. Cunard (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Already done SilkTork closed. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 52/Archives/ 42#RFC: Clarifying policy on pictures of deceased persons? It was started on 6 November 2011. Cunard (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done -- DQ (t) (e) 11:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Talk:C. S. Lewis#Nationality RFC. --FormerIP (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have moved this unresolved request from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Ditto. Cunard (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done and hopefully not coming back. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin close Wikipedia talk:Stub#Proposed wordings, which was listed at Template:Centralized discussion and archived? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done -- DQ (t) (e) 12:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Request for SFD closure
Could someone close Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/9? Thanks! — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Someone want to cleanup from my close? :) -- DQ (t) (e) 11:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'll do the upmerging, but I don't understand the proposer's "footy-club" "footyclub" explanation so someone has to do the renaming. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Figured it out using the other template involved. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'll do the upmerging, but I don't understand the proposer's "footy-club" "footyclub" explanation so someone has to do the renaming. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Could an admin please close the discussion above? I'm involved so I'm afraid I can't. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 01:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Could an admin please close the above? -FASTILY (TALK) 04:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Can an Admin please close this. I nominated it, but in the past day it has become an international issue - clearly notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Could an admin please close the above? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 22:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- I will close it but I don't know which templates to use. Protonk (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- The templates to use are: {{Puf top}} and {{Puf bottom}}. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 23:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Protonk (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- The templates to use are: {{Puf top}} and {{Puf bottom}}. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 23:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done Someone with AWB can post {{Oldpuffull}} with: {{Oldpuffull| date = 2011-12-4| result = Keep| page = File:Signature of Abhishek Bachchan.svg}} on the file description pages if they prefer, but I'm not going to do that without tools. Protonk (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
DRV's needing closing by an Admin
Please could an admin close some overdue DRVs at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 11 and Wikipedia:Deletion_review#12_December_2011. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! (no timestamp to prevent archiving until done as the last request fell off ANI unactioned)
Could an admin please close this puf nomination? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 04:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone close this? Not sure if it is suppose to go in the first section, but it's over 2 months old. CTJF83 14:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have moved this unresolved request from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive229. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done -- DQ (t) (e) 20:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Can an admin please close this discussion if you have the fortitude to actually read it all its an interesting discourse. As it stands its going nowhere, its bordered on NPA violations since it started the only reason its not been here before is that the editors been there seen that for years or are single focused. At this stage even the neutral people who responded to the request are on the edge, the reality is that sometime in the future it'll be coming to WP:ARBCOM discussion near you. Gnangarra 11:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have moved this unresolved request from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#WP:NPOVN close request. Cunard (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done Hopefully for the better. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Could an admin please close the above? -FASTILY (TALK) 04:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done -- DQ (t) (e) 21:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Pornographic actors/actresses? The discussion was started on 15 November 2011 and listed on Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done by SilkTork (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk aboutabout my edits? 04:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Multilingual search results for registered Wikipedians.? The discussion was started on 19 November 2011 and listed on Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is there any reason, why this should be closed by an admin? Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 01:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion can also be closed by a non-admin. Cunard (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
MFD backlog
I haven't seen this in a while, but there's a multi-day backlog at MFD right now. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Backlog cleared. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This still needs closing. Spartaz Humbug! 18:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
2012
Wikipedia talk:Portal#Purpose of the Portal space was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Would an admin close the discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done -- DQ (t) (e) 23:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
RFC on ttrial period has been open over a month, contribs have slowed considerably in the last week. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- It hasn't actually (only been open 27 days), but still, I think it is time to close it. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- The proposer has requested at WP:BN that a 'crat close this discussion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why a crat is needed. There's only a few dozen of them and there are hundreds of active admins. The proposer does not have the authority to demand that a crat a close it. Really, all it needs is somebody willing to read the whole thing and able to impartially close it, regardless of their user rights. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- The proposer has requested at WP:BN that a 'crat close this discussion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done -- DQ (t) (e) 23:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Multiple File Deletion Closures
- Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_17#File:Brookhaven_brooks_lake.jpg - Witdrawn and renominated today by Fastily. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 07:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_17#File:Singaravelu.JPG - Done by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk aboutabout my edits? 18:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 December 11#File:100807fiestaPG-045.jpg
- Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 December 11#File:1000MCM penetrants.jpg
- Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 December 11#File:1. Dan Masterson - Pearl River.jpg
- Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 December 11#File:2005Away.jpg
Would an admin please close this discussions? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 23:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Merged Requests. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done -- DQ (t) (e) 23:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
RFC with some contention. Needs an admin to summarize consensus and close since it got enough time and is not getting anymore comments. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 09:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
RFC started on 7th Dec, zero objections since then but I deliberately waited for an objection, got one and addressed it. Advise on where to list for more comments (if in anycase more are needed before closure - though a reasonable time has passed). Close other wise. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 09:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
RFC about a MOS issue, only one uninvolved admin has commented yet but more comments don't seem to be coming and the issue seems pretty simpple. Consider the valid points by the users. If a rough consensus isn't seen please advise on where to list for generating more comments. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 09:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
To me it appears unlikely that any consensus will emerge for the proposed merger of Thomas G. Plante into another article. There has been no activity for more than 10 days. Would it be premature to suggest that the discussion be closed and the merger templates removed? Thanks -- Presearch (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks for having attended to this. Have a happy 2012! -- Presearch (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enable "Show changes since last visit" on watchlist? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can't see why an admin closure is needed here, tbh. The consensus is obvious and the proposed Bugzilla request has already been filed. Jafeluv (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Longstanding cases at WP:AE needs closure
Two ridiculously longstanding cases at WP:AE need administrative attention. Multiple admins participated in the discussion on both cases, but the admin wearout is known to be excessive at AE, thus no one is currently willing to outline the consensus. Please see:
--ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- 1st Done, will take care of the other one after some of the other threads above are dealt with tomorrow. -- DQ (t) (e) 08:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- 2nd Done by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 09:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
DeltaQuad, thank you for spending time and effort in solving these contradictory and pretty text-walled cases. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
now open for over two weeks. it would be be great if we could have it closed. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Fastily (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 09:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved admin close this please? Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RFC_on_Recognizability_guideline_wording
Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. This may be considered a superseded request. The matter has been raised again (with more detail provided) in a new section on 13 January. See here. NoeticaTea? 03:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Could an admin please close this discussion? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 06:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Carnildo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Could an admin please close this discussion? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 23:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
This does not need to remain open. The only position that has achieved any support whatsoever in the three weeks this has been open is the position that the RFC is a waste of time and effort intended to force a user to do things they are explicitly not required to do. Talk page is mostly the certifiers of the RFC slamming me for pointing this out to them. Actual subject has declined to participate so the chance of any voluntary agreement is zero. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but one more week won't make any difference at this point. Minor quibble: I don't think Hentzer explicitly declined participation. It seems to me he's just been ignoring the RfC/U which was started as some sort of retribution for him not replying at WQA on the same issue raised by the same editors certifying the RfC/U. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's a matter of semantics, I would say deliberately ignoring something is equivalent to declining to particpate. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
So, five days on and the situation is that still more users have come to endorse the idea that the RFC itself is flawes and useless, still not one single outside opinion supports the position of the filing parties. No discussion whatsoever on the talk page in the last ten days. This is an easy one guys, it just needs any uninvolved user to come by and formally close it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I took your invitation and closed it (With appropriate notices that I clerked the initial stages by reminding the people supporting the main position that they needed to sign in the certification section) Since nobody's reverted I guess this is resolved. Hasteur (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please review this and close before it gets archived?--v/r - TP 14:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Interaction ban enacted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Ready for close and we don't seem to have a regular DRV closer at the moment. Ta. Spartaz Humbug! 07:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ping! This is still sitting. It seems fairly straightforward. Hobit (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 08:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Could an admin please close this discussion? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 06:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Uninvolved closure needed. Discussion has pretty much died and consensus is clear. I think if I closed it it might cause problems. Wrad (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Tornado, West Virginia merger into Upper Falls, West Virginia
This merger was proposed in July, 2011 and there is unanimous consensus that it should be completed. Would an administrator please close this?Thpn (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I hate to bother, and I know I could go look, but can I get a direct link to the discussion please? -- DQ (t) (e) 15:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Falls,_West_VirginiaThpn (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge was Done by TheCatalyst31 (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge was
- The discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Falls,_West_VirginiaThpn (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
See last section there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to ask an administrator to close the proposal on merging Mandate Palestine and British Mandate for Palestine. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done Proposal closed upon consensus, administrator assistance not required.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Merge discussion needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done Closed. (NAC) PaoloNapolitano 16:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I would be very grateful if an uninvolved admin could come by and close this RfC. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved admin close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Central Notices? Discussion died down on 28 December 2011 and today the RFC bot removed the expired RFC template. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 16:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The 30 days are not up for an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:INB#Options but comments have dried up and we're having to bump the thread to prevent it archiving. Is there any uninvolved person willing to attempt a closure? - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh come on! Someone try it. This one is not that controversial, only lengthy :) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done Though I would like to say with your comment, Animeshkulkarni, that it makes me no more likely to close it. I try and go in order as they come in, when I get the time. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Inactive since 5 January and ready to closed. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Bold, revert, discuss? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Binding content discussions? The discussion was started on 21 December 2011. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Not done With the latest !votes in less than the past two days, and not even 50 editors stating an opinion, and it affecting a mass million (excuse my exaggeration), I'd rather let this one be archived than make an attempt to close. My official position on this if you want one, is not enough talk to draw a consensus. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin summarize the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process? The discussion was initiated in September 2011. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Spartaz (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The Afd discussion for the Laos women's national rugby union team has been open for over a month and appears to have fallen off the listing at AFD. Could an administrator either close it or relist it so others will notice it. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Has been relisted at the main AFD page, so no further action required. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Kubigula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#"Deletion" of reviewer userright was initiated on 28 December 2011. Would an admin assess the consensus at the discussion? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion? Cunard (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, my closure was contested so I reverted it. Will need an admin to close now. Jenks24 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Various block and ban proposals advanced in the subsections of that thread. Could an uninvolved admin determine which ones are ripe to be closed, and for those determine the consensus? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think you mean "uninvoled admin". Right? Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. Corrected. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by 28bytes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. Corrected. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
We need an admin to assess consensus for the RfC discussion ending Jan 17. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: Consensus for the main RfC seems simple enough, but the conclusion is disputed a little further down the page (here) -Thibbs (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion has run for 30 days and can be closed. Closing admin please note the canvassing issues that have come into play. --Rschen7754 01:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good lord this is the longest RfC i've seen in a while.
In progress of closing, and it looks fairly simple, but give me a day or threesome time to look over everything to be sure and because there are so many comments. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Modified -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)- Done -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
This RFC has been open since about two months and has been once relisted due to lack of participation. Editors have given arguments but without citations on one side while many citations exist in the article for the articles being about the same area. Users seem to be voting here rather than getting a consensus so the arguments and their basis might need to be considered a bit more thoroughly. I think this should be admin closed as the article was once merged and split before. All those points have been reconsidered in this RFC which is on the merge proposal. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done, NAC, which I consider unproblematic as there clearly doesn't seem to be a consensus to merge. Feel free to contest my closure. PaoloNapolitano 13:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- No references were provided the opposing parties to back up their claims (while many references for support were provided). Oppose comments as such seem personal opinion or OR. Please check that. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- The supporting parties provided no more references than what the opposers provided. There is no consensus to merge, which is what the discussion is about, just two-three users pushing references and answering claims. PaoloNapolitano 14:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- No references were provided the opposing parties to back up their claims (while many references for support were provided). Oppose comments as such seem personal opinion or OR. Please check that. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
We need an admin to assess consensus for the RfC discussion ending Feb 5. The debate has been running since early December and the main parties involved are thoroughly sick of the debate so we need closure if possible. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
If someone could close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/A Star Is Born (2012 film), that would be great. The discussion has been open far past to standard time for discussion, and I can't close it because I participated. Thanks for your help! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Bencherlite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin please close this proposal? Thanks and cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at closing this? RFCbot removed the RFC template on 29 January 2012 and the {{Request close}} template's been on there for more than a week. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please close this discussion? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 04:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin please take on the task of closing this TfD? It has been open for roughly nine days now and is thus overdue to be closed. Thanks in advance. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Can someone please take care of this soon? It's quickly approaching two weeks since nomination, and people are now beginning to argue about what the discussion should be closed as, rather than debating the template itself. jcgoble3 (talk)
- Ask Ironholds if he'll do it. He hasn't commented, and is known for reasonable closures of discussion like these Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Y (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). jcgoble3 (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion has gone on for 30 days and should be closed. Given the nature of this discussion and the ongoing issues surrounding it, it should probably be done sooner rather than later. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please close this discussion? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 10:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
RFC has expired, the topic is very contentious with a supporting editor unilaterally claiming consensus to which I have disagreed based on the comments so it needs an administrator to weigh the arguments in the RFC and the related consensus Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Taliban and close. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is no related consensus as the current discussion is about Pakistan's support to the Taliban before September 11, 2001 and the other discussion was about the support after 9/11. The situation of source availability is completely different for both time periods and the discussions have been going completely differently. JCAla (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've already provided quotations from that discussion which say the opposite (esp for attribution). Don't think this place is for that discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Can someone please close this out it has been two weeks since the RFC ended and the content keeps getting reverted out. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Done by User:Ironholds.--v/r - TP 13:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess and implement the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Changing the "d" to "t" in templates? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Ironholds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin close Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)#RfC: Is WP:WEB criterion three really necessary? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Ironholds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I tried posting this at AN, but it was archived without comment. There has been a discussion on the featured picture candidates talk page over the last few weeks about how "delist" discussions should be dealt with. It would be good if we could get some closure- there have been no comments for some days. Can I request that an experienced editor who was not involved in the discussion close it, and post any conclusions reached? Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Overturned delisting. If there is a more appropriate place for this request, please point me to it. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bump Nikthestoned 14:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Try posting at WP:AN/RFC; it's transcluded above, but the bot knows not to archive until it's actually closed, and editors do patrol that page looking for discussions to close. --Rschen7754 09:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- A little correction. WP:ANRFC is archived manually, the bot wouldn't know, if a discussion is closed or not. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Try posting at WP:AN/RFC; it's transcluded above, but the bot knows not to archive until it's actually closed, and editors do patrol that page looking for discussions to close. --Rschen7754 09:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
This RM was recently relisted due to lack of consensus; but several editors are waiting for this RM to close before we start a new (bigger and better) RM proposing to move ROC to Taiwan. In other words, very shortly after the Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation)#Move request discussion closes (pressumably with no consensus), a new RM will begin at Talk:Republic of China. This has been building for quite some time, and I think a few editors are itching to get the ball rolling (we even have the future RM proposal pre-written here). Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- This was closed by Mike Cline, and reverted by Eraserhead1. Kanguole 23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done. That was fun! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please close this discussion? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 00:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 22:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it's time to close that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Needs closure, although contentious, but no comments for support except nominator's as of yet. Open since nearly a month. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- This can be archived, there are no consensus on the RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- This RFC has been restarted in another section weaseling around the same. Please close that too per WP:POINT. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- This RFC has been restarted in another section weaseling around the same. Please close that too per WP:POINT. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion and poll have now become dormant and the poll needs closure. AshLin (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, we need an uninvolved admin to come over and close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ. The RfC degenerated to a pissing match last week and nothing material has emerged since then. There have only been a few edits related to Fae at all, while most of the edits are in regards to Wikipedia Review, editor behavior, and personal attacks. 3 of the last 5 "views" have nothing to do with Fae whatsoever. The talk page is even worse ALL of the comments on the talk page since last Friday have dealt with the ages of Mohamed and King John's wives---don't ask me, I stopped reading that thread a long time ago. Nothing meaningful has been gianed over the past week and nothing is going to be gained by keeping it open, except to serve as a forum for further bickering. I opened a proposal today to close and everybody seems to agree, there is no sense keeping it open.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 05:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- LOL, that's a pretty tempting sales pitch there, Balloonman! 28bytes (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that admins were busy hatting some threads, but did not intervene to move off-topic views (actually proposals) like this to the talk page. It turned the RfC into another WP:BADSITES draft. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion is ongoing, and one "attempted summary" has been posted. One week is not going to destroy Wikipedia, I rather think. Collect (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Week's up, Wikipedia is still here. I'd say it's time to put this one to bed (or out of its misery?) ReverendWayne (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Nobody Ent (talk · contribs) due to inactivity. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin close Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites#RfC: Proposal for promotion of Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites to a guideline? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This discussion was opened ten days ago and it should be closed now by an uninvolved admin. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 16:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Balloonman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 21:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved admin take a look at this with a view to closing and moving if appropriate? It is a proposal to split Jeremy Bamber into a biography and an article about the murders he was convicted of carrying out. The discussion took place in three stages. I have summarized them, with links, at Talk:Jeremy Bamber#Summing up for the closing admin 2. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- closed by Nobody Ent (talk · contribs). The discussion is now at Talk:White_House_Farm_murders#Requested_move. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel School Giridih could use a snow closure. Nobody Ent 11:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Admins needed at WT:NOT
Please could an uninvolved admin (or possibly several) take a look at sections 1-11 of WT:NOT (the discussions about Wikipedia and censorship) and preferably close some (or all) of the discussion threads. This has been going on for the several weeks now and tempers are showing signs of fraying. There is 740k of text on the page now, almost all of it related to the censorship issue (108,000 words / 169 A4 pages of wikitext in 12pt text). Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have moved the close request for WT:NOT from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive229#Admins needed at WT:NOT but not the subsequent discussion. Cunard (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have to comment on the fact that there (now what's left because I only see 1-8) is quite a bit of discussion going on there, and discussion by itself does not need closing. Now as for the RFC proposals, and please excuse my WP:TLDR on some of them, your asking for (an / a group of) impartial admins/non-admins to close the comments on a proposal of a proposal? Drafts of proposals exist for a reason, but to sum up and say "x is the best proposal" or "X has the most support" I think is counter-productive because the points that are opposed in the current draft are just going to be objected to on the actual request for comment if it actually comes from all that discussion. Feel free to object, and maybe I missed something, like I said, quite a bit of WP:TLDR involved, but this is not something I'm willing to close per what i've said above. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- The landscape has changed a bit since I made the request. The request was made because of persistent repetitive argument perceived as WP:IDHT by many commenters; since then though people appear to have mostly got the message that repeating the same arguments will not make people agree with them when they haven't done before. There is a lot of TLDR there, but basically there were three sections:
- A specific question regarding whether WP:NOT "protect[s] incidental material" or not (which if you look at the comments in both the "does" and "does not" sections looks like a consensus that the answer is neither and that NOTCENSORED is irrelevant)
- Several nebulous proposals about altering WP:NOT in someway regarding how we should defer to what images are used by reliable sources. The whole discussion is/was a mess because various people appeared to be treating it as a specific discussion about images (specific or general) used in certain articles (particularly Pregnancy and Muhammed, although others were mentioned) while others were discussing general principles, sometimes using specific articles as examples.
- Proposals that image use (and possibly article content/article choice) should be governed by the overriding principle of not offending "cultural norms".
- All three went round in circles with lots of WP:IDHT and not getting the point.
- From my partisan point of view, I'd say that the first section should be closed somehow to make it clear that there is consensus that whether material is included or not depends only on its relevance to the topic; and that as there was no consensus on what "incidental" or "protected" meant that the question cannot be answered further by that RfC.
- The second, I'd probably close as no consensus without prejudice to future discussion about a more clearly defined proposal/question about a proposal where it is clear what is being asked.
- The third, I'd close as rejected based on consensus that the proposal is fundamentally incompatible with NPOV. I repeat though I am highly partisan.
- Even though they're starting to lapse into the archive, I think that formal closure would be of benefit to the almost inevitable next round, wherever that might be, as certain editors (clearly named elsewhere) have been trying very similar proposals in many places for several years, each time resulting in no consensus or rejection. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to close such sections above, but with them flying into the archive (yes, i'll go through the archive), I am not 100% sure which sections you are referring to, could you please link them? -- DQ (t) (e) 11:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 41#RfC on NOTCENSORED
- Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 40#The path to Wikipedia policy fundamentalism -- a case study (possibly not the last subsection)
- Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 39#Proposed change to WP:NOTCENSORED
- Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 38#RfC-related PROPOSAL: Add WP:ASTONISH to the hatnote and call it a day
- Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 38#Objectionable content
- Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 37#What WP:NOTCENSORED is not
- And anything else you think would benefit from a closure statement in archives 37-40.
- You should be aware (if you're not already) though that there is a pending request for arbitration that might (or might not) take into account the happenings at WT:NOT. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Since this is already at ArbCom and deals with the specifics of the RfC and the user conduct on it, i'm going to put this close on hold. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Call us up when the Arb Case is over, for now...lets collapse this thread. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Muhammad images case was closed today at 06:29 (UTC), the final decision can be found there. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to close such sections above, but with them flying into the archive (yes, i'll go through the archive), I am not 100% sure which sections you are referring to, could you please link them? -- DQ (t) (e) 11:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- The landscape has changed a bit since I made the request. The request was made because of persistent repetitive argument perceived as WP:IDHT by many commenters; since then though people appear to have mostly got the message that repeating the same arguments will not make people agree with them when they haven't done before. There is a lot of TLDR there, but basically there were three sections:
Ok, this request has been up for weeks now. I was involved there, but I don't see any of those archived proposals having had consensus then or now. I think no formal closure is needed for any of those other than the removal of this request. As for the "almost inevitable next round", I hope ArbCom managed to make it less inevitable. I also note that in the mean time we had a separate discussion on the WP:POLA page. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done The debate has now been archived and not had any new comments for two months. The related ARBCOM case is also closed, the principle remedy was that the "Community asked to decide issue of Muhammad images". Rather than try and draw any conclusion from the previous debate it seem better to hold a new discussion bearing the arbcom case and the previous discussion in mind.--Salix (talk): 11:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
This RfC listing is about to reach has reached 18:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC) its 30 day expiration. The closing assistance of an uninvolved administrator with some experience and interest in the resolution WP:NPOV issues would be greatly appreciated. Please be aware that there are also 2 additional RfCs on this talk page (already beyond 30 days) in want of closure one of which, IMHO, may be rendered moot by a closing determination for this RfC. Thanks very much for your consideration and anticipated assistance. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done closed three discussions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin or admins close:
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 14#Mawashi Protective Clothing Done by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 14#Paul J. Alessi Done by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 16:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 14#Salvador Tercero Done by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 14#User:Bittergrey/CAMH_Promotion Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- The last is still open, and now nearly two weeks overdue for a close. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Now all closed.
Could an uninvolved editor close this. It's pretty simple, but I'm involved. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The seven days of discussion have more than passed, and there is an overwhelming lack of consensus to move the article; the number of editors advocating a move is almost equal to the number of people opposing it. For several reasons, however, the request is not eligible for non-admin closure so I'm kindly asking if an administrator could please close it. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
This AfD is open from more than a month (without any relisting). Time for closing? Cavarrone (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
For a while, there has a been a movement to rename and move several Republic of China and Taiwan related articles. On 17 Feburary 2012, the RM in the section title was posted and has since gained attention by many people, including some from the Chinese Wikipedia. Many users at the talk page have sorted out who is for or against the move and who is a puppet or SPA, and now there has been a general agreement that just as the move in August 2011 (People's Republic of China to China) was, this one should also be dealt with by some (perferably three) uninvolved administrators to decide what the consensus is and close the move based on such. Thank you. JPECH95 17:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- I can't imagine why there aren't more admin's volunteering for this one.. we have sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, canvassing (internal and external, on multiple occasions), rotating IP addresses (many of which have been blocked), incivility, obscenities.. and the discussion has only been 485kb of text (and counting!)... what's not to like?! :-)
- But seriously, it would be great if a few brave and noble admins wrapped this one up.. I think this battleground is starting to take a toll on the editors, who probably want to get back to editing. Especially since the recent canvassing has tainted the discussion. Mlm42 (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I will volunteer as one of a three. I was on a wikibreak before, so no point in holding it up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks! You are a gentleman. I could point out that the discussion is now over 577kb in size.. (somebody make it stop!) Mlm42 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I seriously and honestly think the only way to deal with it is to say that the 11 March 2012 was the last day and to ignore the comments since then - much of the canvassing and inappropriate behaviour has come since then. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I find it disappointing that people have dropped to the level of 5 year olds on this discussion, and that there are so many outside people who realistically are only doing this as a political motive (the people who voted support due to canvassing), and it saddens me to say that I'm thankful we noted that comments after 11 March are realistically dust in the wind. JPECH95 13:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I seriously and honestly think the only way to deal with it is to say that the 11 March 2012 was the last day and to ignore the comments since then - much of the canvassing and inappropriate behaviour has come since then. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks! You are a gentleman. I could point out that the discussion is now over 577kb in size.. (somebody make it stop!) Mlm42 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- We should plan to close in the usual way with the strength of policy based arguments, just numbers of votes is not what counts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely, I think that whomever started numbering the sections support and oppose doesn't quite understand WP:NOTAVOTE. I mean, yes, we all want to know how many there are, but realistically it means very little. Not to say that the consensus doesn't appear to be in the support to begin with, in my opinion it appears that way, still, but we don't need to number them to show it. JPECH95 23:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'll add my name in as admin #2, as someone who has some experience with the RM process.--Aervanath (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hoo boy, this is going to take a while to process. It may take me a couple days to go through all of the debate.--Aervanath (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you! :-) Mlm42 (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is plenty to ignore such as editors attacking each other. Aervanath please update my summary of policies/arguments, or see if this is the way you would like to proceed with closure. At this point I think we can rule out alternative 2 3 and 4. We still need a third admin though! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have requested one at WT:RM.--Aervanath (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hoo boy, this is going to take a while to process. It may take me a couple days to go through all of the debate.--Aervanath (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion was archived to Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
User:jc37 has pitched in as 3rd admin.--Aervanath (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion closed by the three admins. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This has only been open a day, but the consensus is very clear. The reason for asking for an early close is that otherwise the story will miss its WP:ITN slot. --FormerIP (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done by ThaddeusB (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Ugg boots#RFC on Concerns about quality section & Talk:Ugg boots#RFC on inclusion/exclusion of court cases involving counterfeits
Two ongoing disputes. The first was a formally listed RfC that finished a little while back. The second wasn't formally list. Any help closing them would be much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- {{notdone}} One, I can not find, the other I don't follow and seems to me like basic policies, and US Law already cover this, but i'd prefer someone with more insight, but not involvement into what's going on here look into the latter one that I can see. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Something odd happened in the archiving of the first one - probably my fault. I've fixed it, and if there's a chance to formally close it one way or the other it would be much appreciated. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Of note, I think the discussions should be closed together, so i'm going to leave this one. Sorry, -- DQ (t) (e) 20:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- No hassles. That makes a lot of sense. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Of note, I think the discussions should be closed together, so i'm going to leave this one. Sorry, -- DQ (t) (e) 20:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Something odd happened in the archiving of the first one - probably my fault. I've fixed it, and if there's a chance to formally close it one way or the other it would be much appreciated. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Done Talk:Ugg boots#RFC on Concerns about quality section --Salix (talk): 19:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Done Talk:Ugg boots#RFC on inclusion/exclusion of court cases involving counterfeits --Aervanath (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Improving PORNBIO was initiated on 26 December 2011 and was listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Would an admin assess whether there is consensus on what to improve in WP:PORNBIO? If there is no consensus on what to improve, would an admin initiate an RfC about deprecating or maintaining the guideline per the consensus in the previous discussion?
The previous closer at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2011#Pornographic actors/actresses who started this discussion wrote: "A suggested outcome for this discussion is that a reasonable amount of time is allowed for people to improve the guideline, and after that a new RfC may be opened specially with the focus of 'deprecating or maintaining' it." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion was archived and can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2012#Improving_PORNBIO. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done--Aervanath (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Debate about contentious label... the debate seems to have died out after heavy opposition. Kindly close this as it is wasting time for further improvement for FAC. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Editors are still commenting on this RFC, far too early to close it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are only six editors opposing... the discussion has died down. There's clearly no chance of this getting a consensus. The closer can decide that. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- This RFC has now expired, kindly close. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Discussion has been archived to Talk:Pakistan/Archive_14#Request_for_comment. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Done--Aervanath (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This has quite a bit of history by now, but since I'm "involved", I won't bore you with it and let you get on with your good work. Could I ask that this be reviewed by three admins so this matter can be finally put to rest? Many thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think this discussion needs more than one admin, as the discussion is relatively short. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the whole thing has been going 18 months, and this is at least the third consensus finding exercise in the history of this particular dispute. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- So it would be good to have a rather authoritative closure that can also lead to a solution being implemented. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been up much less than 7 days, but I think there has been adequate input to show a consensus, and given the high-profile nature of the subject I think it would be better to resolve sooner. If an uninvolved admin agrees, can they please close this one out? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Given that this discussion has only been open 2 days, and that there is no deadline, it would be best if it were open the whole 7 days, especially if it is a high-profile case.--Aervanath (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Over four days now with a very clear consensus and no objections. Why should a high-profile article have an inappropriate name for longer then needed? Another admin might have a look at it. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, way to ignore half the discussion. In reality, four or five users objected (and slightly more supported, after ignoring people who only voted w/no reason given). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is a consensus. But there are two users, including this ThaddeusB, who lost. They failed to provide a single reference to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA to support their point of view. And now, instead of WP:LETITGO, they just resorted to flogging a WP:DEADHORSE --Potorochin (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Let's kindly agree not to ignore any users involved. While there does seem to be a consensus, waiting a little longer is fine. It should be kept in mind, while waiting, that this article describes an event with a high profile in the news. -Darouet (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been on for full 7 days by now. There seems to be a consensus. Would any uninvolved admin please proceed with a formal closure of this discussion? --Potorochin (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. This RFC seems to have run it's course. Would an uninvolved admin close and implement it. Thanks Garycompugeek (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm involved with this RfC, and am unsure whether closure is the best approach. I had been thinking about relisting it when it was due to expire... Jakew (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Jakew is the editor who made the change that started this and is stalling because he is not getting the result he wishes. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Any particular reason this RFC is not being closed? Garycompugeek (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC) This RFC was open on 2/11... please close. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion was archived here. Danger High voltage! 11:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Done Closed. Sandstein 16:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if there is a consensus to merge. This discussion has been inactive since September 2011 with an exception of one recent vote. I request a close, please. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Discussion has died down and it's been sitting at MFD waiting for closure for about a week. Any way we can get a roving admin to check up on it? (It won't be an easy close, I reckon, but I guess that's why y'all earn the Big Bucks. Thank you, Achowat (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done by WereSpielChequers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Would someone take a look at the RfC on the Template talk:Cleanup page? Looks like the discussion is winding down. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 06:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- No need for this. Consensus has been determined to make the reason parameter mandatory. The request to the fully protected page to remove the warning has already been made. Please discuss before making unilateral requests for administrative closures. Administrative closure is not required.Curb Chain (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the advice. This is the first time i have posted anything here. Just was attempting to be helpful. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 17:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
RfC closed; see also corresponding thread below. Sandstein 15:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the advice. This is the first time i have posted anything here. Just was attempting to be helpful. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 17:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
| | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Closure requests. 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 main page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |