Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 14
 | 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
2014
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#On the topic of "Appearance and color" and line-height (initiated 23 June 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Long-winded re-re-rehash that has gone on more than long enough. Note that the essentially identical. concurrent RM at Talk:Hit-Girl (character)#Requested move 14 August 2014 has already closed. There's no reason for parties to be allowed to kind of mutually forum-shop on this question any longer at a different page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Closed by BD2412 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 04:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
NFCR discussions
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Windows logo - 2006.svg
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Dance Moms Season 2 Parts 1&2 DVD Cover.jpg
Could an uninvolved admin/user with some knowledge of copyright/WP:NFCC take a look at this discussion and make a unbiased close? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
In progress I hacked out #1, slowly heading for 2 and 3. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- @DeltaQuad: When you get the chance, do you think you could come by and maybe make another close or two? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- @TLSuda: Closed the second one with recommendations to reopen separate discussions for two of the images. Would you be able to take care of that for me? I'll try and finish the last one tonight or tomorrow. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- As the discussion became stale and the initiator of that original discussion was blocked as a sock. I don't think there will be much further discussion at the moment. There are enough editors who routinely patrol for WP:NFCC violations that if one of them feels discussion is necessary, a new discussion will be opened shortly. Thank you for closing these. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- When closing NFCR discussions, note that you must substitute the {{subst:archive top}} template. If you do not substitute the template, the archival bot will change the wikicode from {{archive top|rationale}} to {{tl|archive top|rationale}} in the archive, making it impossible for readers of the archive to see the rationale. The bottom template, {{archive bottom}}, doesn't need to be substituted as the archival bot doesn't mess that one up. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- @TLSuda: Closed the second one with recommendations to reopen separate discussions for two of the images. Would you be able to take care of that for me? I'll try and finish the last one tonight or tomorrow. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- @DeltaQuad: When you get the chance, do you think you could come by and maybe make another close or two? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Open since 29 April. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved administrator please close this deletion discussion. This discussion was opened after a deletion review which was opened after the original deletion discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved administrator please close this deletion discussion. This discussion was opened 3 days after I closed another discussion about the image. Fortunately this discussion had more participation and a good close would, regardless of outcome, likely stop the nominator from re-nominating a third time in a month. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Open for over one week, sending now to get ahead of bottleneck. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 16:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Although the editor was blocked for 3 months there is still the outstanding discussion of a topic ban. 12 supports for a topic ban (some wanting to go further), one against, one for a block. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by llywrch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 16:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#RfC: Is the effect of Joran van der Sloot's murder of Stephany Flores relevant? (initiated 1 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist)#RfC: Should Fred Hiatt's quotes in this article be given special prominence over quotes from Rubin's critics? (initiated 28 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Merge text from one section of Global Warming Controversy (initiated 17 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Request for comment (initiated 20 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this Rasmussen poll be included in the article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:The Edge#The Edge should be capital "T" or lower-case "t" in running prose? (initiated 26 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Donald Trump#"people associated with the Tea Party movement" (initiated 28 July 2014)? Please consider Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Done by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement? Please consider Talk:Donald Trump#"people associated with the Tea Party movement" in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done by User:Fayenatic london. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jesus#RfC: Should the term "Jesus of Galilee" be included in the lead? (initiated 25 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Persondata template be removed from articles? (initiated 20 July 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done by Mdann52. Number 57 12:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 August#Oriya language (initiated 28 August 2014)? Although the discussion has not gone on for seven days, participants have called for a speedy close as wrong venue. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Economy of Pakistan#RfC: What should be the poverty threshold? (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done closed as no consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities#Size again (initiated 18 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done oppose Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Arranged marriage#RFC - Lede, timeframe, use of historical terms (initiated 25 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done no consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road#RfC: recast vs reboot? (initiated 28 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RFC on word choice and cross-cultural sensitivity (initiated 29 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Add something about never using headlines as sources? (initiated 29 July 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC, where the proposal is:
Are headlines for newspaper articles ever usable as a reliable source for any claim where the headline claim is not found in the body of the newspaper article?
Should this content guideline state:
- Newspaper headlines are not a reliable source and should not be used
Please consider Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 43#RfC – are newspaper headlines a reliable source per se? (initiated 12 June 2014) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Should the R3 criterion (Implausible typos) be broadened? (initiated 8 August 2014)? Other than one comment made 22 August 2014 and and another made 29 August 2014, there has been little participation since 19 August 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please close this. The same person (using two different IP addresses) has !voted "keep" three times, refusing to acknowledge that a record of who has contributed to the discussion is kept in the page history, claiming each is a different person. Having edit-warred to keep his three votes in place, they remain the only opinions in favour of retention against a number of policy-based deletion opinions. We are unfairly delaying the inevitable; allowing him to flog a long-dead horse. St★lwart111 23:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Question about WP:NACD (initiated 4 August 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#RfC: Should non-admins reopen deletion discussions after an NAC? (initiated 6 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Let's give this one its 30 days just in case anybody else cares to weigh in. Feel free to ping me if I haven't got to it by Saturday and I'll close it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism#WikiProject Autism banners on biographical article talk pages
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism#WikiProject Autism banners on biographical article talk pages (initiated 1 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 05:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Should the MediaWiki software be modified to include an option for specialized (such as blacklist / whitelist) blocks? (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Should the wording of CSD A7 be changed? (initiated 7 August 2014)? The last comment was made 13 August 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Archived to: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 54#RfC: Should the wording of CSD A7 be changed? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Already done by S Marshall (talk · contribs). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Could an admin impliment WP:VPP#Change the name of reviewers to "Pending changes reviewer" please? The RfC has run for close to a month now, and consensus seems clear enough to me. Implimentation notes are included at [1] - please note nothing is needed on the dev side, and all needs to be implimented locally. Please let me know if you need guidence on this. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 05:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Relisted by Davey2010 (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 20:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Listed for a month now, consensus (IMO) has moved to keep. – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Spinningspark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Somaly Mam#RfC: see-also link to Greg Mortenson (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pariah state#RfC: Is the List section original research? (initiated 10 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)#Article title – Request for Comments (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It started out about one person. However, the comments became more about all other band members, which confused me. I think I need assistance on consensus please. --George Ho (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Looking for an admin to close this. It's run for 30 days and is definitely ready for closing KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Flatlist or comma separated lists? (initiated 31 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 4#accreditation (initiated 14 July 2014)? The discussion at Talk:Creation Museum#Resolved? indicates that 22 editors participated in the discussion. Because of the discussion's complexity (one editor called it "Longest RfC discussion ever"), I believe a closure would be helpful in determining and recording the consensus. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done It appears the changes largely agreed upon in the RfC have already been made to the article. Protonk (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
This discussion seemed routine at first, but a couple of late comments make it less than obvious that this should be a routine close. I.E., The first seven respondents all gave support, but the last two articulated only partial support for specific reasons that may need consideration. Discussion was opened a full week ago.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by BD2412 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Requesting a formal close. I believe consensus on this is fairly clear-cut, but given the controversial long-term nature of the overall discussion it's probably best to have an uninvolved editor handle the assessment just to keep everything on the up and up. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done Consensus is clear, but what you're asking to impose is a bit strong. Protonk (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 August#2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (initiated 16 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Process for deleting drafts? This RFC started a few months ago, and the last comment was in June, but the discussion was never closed. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Not too much to draw from the conclusions there, however. Protonk (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism (initiated 8 July 2014) and Talk:Autism#Compromise proposal: "people who are autistic" (initiated 4 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for the 4 August discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Second was Closed by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- First is also Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Review of Admin RFC Closure (removal of book by Koenraad Elst in Further reading section of an article) (initiated 26 August 2014) after there has been sufficient participation and sufficient time has passed? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Seems like because this was an AN post, it should have been closed by an admin, but I have closed per WP:IAR for reasons explained there. I, JethroBT drop me a line 10:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC Talk:Of Human Feelings#Last sentence in Critical reception (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Chinese#RfC: How to display the characters (initiated 27 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this template display simplified Chinese characters first or traditional Chinese characters first?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2013 IRS controversy#"we need to be cautious about what we say in emails" (initiated 10 July 2014)? See the subsection Talk:2013 IRS controversy#RFC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Not done No close needed. Consensus to include is clear. The quote is included. The real issue is the context around the quote. That is being discussed so closing this RfC will just be a distraction. Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:LeBron James#Should the List of 40-plus point games by LeBron James be included in the "see also" section, or should it not? (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not done I'll leave a comment but this seems like the sort of thing which can be resolved without divining consensus from three posts. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Unopposed (if low-participation) cleanup proposal has run for three months. Way long enough for objections to have been raised. While a non-admin could close this, is probably better if done administratively, due to these being (nominal) guidelines subject to frequent contentious tooth-gnashing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've asked for contributions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RfC on merging guidance on naming conventions. Yaris678 (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- That resulted in no substantive additions to the discussion on either page, for ten days now. Again, I request that the proposal be closed, so that the cleanup needed to be done there can proceed. Most of the fractiousness with regard to these guidelines will disappear as soon as their potential for mutual contradiction is fixed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done WP:SILENCE consensus for support Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- That resulted in no substantive additions to the discussion on either page, for ten days now. Again, I request that the proposal be closed, so that the cleanup needed to be done there can proceed. Most of the fractiousness with regard to these guidelines will disappear as soon as their potential for mutual contradiction is fixed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879? (initiated 27 July 2014)? See the related discussion Talk:War of the Pacific#Request to close the discussion where Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) wrote:
This RfC looks a bit contentious, so it should probably be closed by an uninvolved editor before any edit requests are carried out. (Edit requests are only for edits that already have consensus.) If it doesn't look like there will be any more discussion in the RfC, I would list it for closure at WP:ANRFC (although it seems to be a bit backlogged at the moment). Also, Keysanger, Darkness Shines has a point about the walls-o'-text; you'll probably find that you can persuade more people if you keep your posts shorter. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879?. The RfC has run for close to a month now, and consensus seems clear enough to me. Please let me know if you need guidence on this.--Keysanger (Talk) 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done no consensus. Take it to DR/Mediation if this needs to continue. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:West End Avenue#RfC: Merger with Eleventh Avenue (Manhattan)? (initiated 31 July 2014)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:West End Avenue#Merger with 11th Avenue (Manhattan) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done weak consensus to merge. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada#RFC on official names versus common names (initiated 21 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should WP:PPAP continue to require the usage of official names rather than common names as the titles for Canadian political parties?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done WP:SILENCE consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing merger discussion at Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Suggested merge. It involves merging Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) into that article. The "invasion" article has been filled with controversy since it started, and hence I think it is appropriate to request an uninvolved neutral party to close the discussion and assess consensus when the time comes (in a few days). If you're interested, it would be much appreciated. For reference, I'll also provide a link to this deletion discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 04:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
This RM has dragged on long enough, has no consensus whatsoever, and needs to be closed. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do not agree. The request for closure is based on agenda pushing to downplay the the direct role of Russia in this war. And portray this war as much as possible as a internal Ukrainian civil war. While neutral organisations as Amnesty International label the war as an International war between Russia and Ukraine providing direct evidence for this. We should let time go by, so new/more evidence can clarify the extend of Russian participation and role in this war and preceding unrest. Also Russia admitted it's military involvment in the takeover of Crimea after denying it for more than a month. This will probably also happen after a while with it's participation in the eastern Russian-border region of Ukraine. --Niele (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- (my remark here under was removed here on 13 September 2014, 23:30 by a user on basis of his/her opinion that "it is not relevant")--Niele (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ralph Drollinger#RfC: How much emphasis to place on Capitol Ministries? (initiated 2 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
This article has been subject to disputed editing over how much space to devote to Capitol Ministries – see this revision vs the current. We need to gain consensus on how much detail to include, so all comments invited. I won't structure this yet as I have no idea..am only trying to admin this.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Surnames by culture? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 18:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Long discussion, open for over 30 days, now, requiring closure by an admin or uninvloved, experienced editor. Thanks. Begoon talk 02:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie#RFC: Should material about the New Jersey Public School system be included in the article? (initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done - There was a rough consensus not to include the material. Since the material was deleted, no change to the article is needed. A compromise was mentioned, but was not adequately discussed. If there is a desire to include the compromise material, a new RFC should be listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? (initiated 9 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Years by topic? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Categories by year? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15#Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15#Category:Dates in music? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
This thread has been open since 6 September, and there have been no comments in nearly three days. Could a non-involved and neutral admin assess this thread to see if consensus has been reached, with a view to closing? Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Jmabel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: now closed by Graeme Bartlett. – Fayenatic London 06:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
AfD has run the full length of time. Can someone close this? Kingsindian (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Observation Was closed y'day. Samsara (FA • FP) 11:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
For some reason, this is a contentious close. When the results were 8-3, I felt there was clear consensus, but got reverted. I posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is it necessary to waste resources at WP:ANRFC for a simple close to see if I had to list here, but the lack of interest there suggests that I do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- There was also a new discussion that had just gotten underway when you decided to circumvent the process and attempt to force a decision via vote, despite being reminded that consensus is not a vote. --Drmargi (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I never shut down that process. The vote had open discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have closed the discussion now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I never shut down that process. The vote had open discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:FFD discussions
Could an uninvolved administrator close a few discussions that I participated in:
- Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 September 9#File:Un titled abstract.png
- Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 September 9#File:Moo young nike.png
- Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 September 6#File:Zachara2.JPG
Thanks in advance. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus and close the conversation at Talk:September 11 attacks#RfC: Are conspiracy theories relevant to the effects chapter.3F? Thanks. Smitty121981 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done oppose/no consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox#RfC regarding ceremonial seniority position (initiated 27 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not enough input to close properly. I notified WP:USA for additional participants. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done, closed no consensus. Some additional participants, but the discussion itself made arriving at a consensus to be impractical. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Would someone uninvolved please close this discussion? It has been open for over two weeks (and the relist occurred over one week ago). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, all of the open pornography-related AfDs are pretty backlogged. Uninvolved editor(s) should take time to assess each one of them. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted by Joe Decker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Joe Decker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Already closed by j⚛e decker. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Requested move on September 6, no new votes in over a month. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- closed, this was an easy one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 17#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not done The categories have already been de-populated (even before the RfC started, it appears), and redirects to the new category already implemented, which is consistent with the consensus there, albeit participation was low. A formal close does not seem necessary here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- I withdraw this closure request. Thank you for reviewing this discussion, I JethroBT. Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done closed by Jc37 as no consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:OpenOffice.org#RfC on the topic (initiated 10 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Shall we merge this OpenOffice.org and the Apache OpenOffice articles or is there sufficient evidence to indicate that they are separate projects?
A side issue is, is there sufficient size for each article to exist on its own?
Another side issue would be what to do with the current disambiguation page: OpenOffice.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Renewable energy sources#RfC: Is it possible to remove biomass & biofuel from the template without damaging the credibility of wikipedia? (initiated 2 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Regardless of whether they truly fit the definition, it is clear that neither keeping nor removing them will damage Wikipedia's credibility, and consensus is to keep them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bosnian War#RfC: Factual accuracy and use of war-related terms (initiated 2 August 2014)? The consensus appears to be against the opening poster. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Split, Croatia#Name (initiated 13 August 2014)? The RfC's opening poster wrote: "Should Italian translation of the name be written in the lead since there is a separate section Name." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Girl Next Door (2004 film)#RfC:Is use of the .7B.7Bstory.7D.7D template appropriate for a plot summary of a fictional film? (initiated 5 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television#RFC: Format and Genre parameters (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Guideline for terminology on immigrants (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Get Rid of PROD (initiated 3 September 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Five pillars#What is this page? (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vibhabakshi (initiated 14 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done by Callanecc. Number 57 12:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neme81/sandbox (2nd nomination) (initiated 11 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done by Callanecc. Number 57 12:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Edward1967/turas (2nd nomination) (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done by Callanecc. Number 57 12:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tommynewsnetwork/sandbox (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done by xaosflux. Number 57 12:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dezidor/Simon Mol (initiated 5 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cleduc/Pligg (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done by xaosflux. Number 57 12:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 7#Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done by jc37. Number 57 12:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Villages in Hama merge and rename of Category:Subdistricts of Hama? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done by jc37. Number 57 12:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Any uninvolved user can close this. Consensus seems pretty clear to me, but I am the OP. If someone can just indicate the consensus, I can do the cleanup. Kingsindian (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Already done by Randykitty. There's no need to list AfDs here as soon as they're a week old. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Should this commentary on issues be included in BLPs (initiated 16 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)#RfC: Notability of YouTubers (initiated 28 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 18:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiGoals (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Xaosflux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 18:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Royal New Zealand Ballet (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Xaosflux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 18:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Digital movie cameras and Category:Camcorder films? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Fayenatic london (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 13:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Phases of the Moon? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed I have closed this as No consensus. Fayenatic London 12:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block appeal for CSDarrow (initiated 18 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Euryalus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 18:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a merge proposal here. [2] While this was posted by GenQuest it was opened at the request of Atsme on Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#AWAITING_CONSENSUS. I would like to note that the request by Atsme was made on 30 June. On July 28 Atsme has opened a merge and delete discussion that resulted in not to merge as seen [3]. Further There is currently an open AFD [4] to delete the proposed article. Two conversations that come down to notability of the same article. I request this merge proposal be closed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Will an administrator please assess the consensus at this proposal for a topic ban on the creation of new articles by User:Aditya soni in article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Assistance requested at Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done ?? It got archived without action, and imo there is not consensus for a topic ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, what do you think? Armbrust The Homunculus 14:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there was no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Is it okay with you, if it remains unclosed? That's what I meant. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Formal closure in this case isn't needed. Go ahead and close this request for closure while leaving the thread archived. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Is it okay with you, if it remains unclosed? That's what I meant. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there was no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, what do you think? Armbrust The Homunculus 14:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic#RfC: Modern country names vs. their 1912 equivalents (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pectinidae#RfC: Splitting and joining Scallop & Pectinidae (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:WZTV#WP:NOTDIR (initiated 7 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Major change: Journalism -> Original reporting (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not done. A formal close would only be stating the obvious. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: And why is that a bad thing? Armbrust The Homunculus 14:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a bad thing, per se, it's just pointless. Not every discussion needs a formal close, and many weren't before this board existed. It's just that the existence of this board encourages people to list anything and everything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've duly stated the obvious. We could have a discussion about whether we need to close the discussion, or we could, you know, just close the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 19:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a bad thing, per se, it's just pointless. Not every discussion needs a formal close, and many weren't before this board existed. It's just that the existence of this board encourages people to list anything and everything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: And why is that a bad thing? Armbrust The Homunculus 14:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress (initiated 22 August 2014)?
The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator review Talk:Kiger Mustang#Request for comments on article scope for speedy close? Montanabw(talk) 19:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Already done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
RfC has run the full 30 days and has been delisted. Needs closing by an uninvolved editor, preferably experienced. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Constant folding#RfC: Mention string literal concatenation (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Should there be a mention of string literal concatenation (SLC) on the constant folding (CF) article or not? Concretely, proposed edit (diff):
...
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources#RfC, IMDB on the Project Page (initiated 4 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done. This was another one that perhaps did not need to be listed for formal closure. It was nearly unanimous. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkish presidential election, 2014#RfC: Should Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu's colour be red or blue? (initiated 21 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Used to and didn't use to (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nerdypunkkid/Dan Nainan (initiated 31 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:2829VC/Peter Chapple (initiated 22 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#SMcCandlish temporary move ban - request for narrowing clarification (initiated 13 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie#Loughner section RfC (initiated 20 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Another unanimous RfC that probably didn't need to be listed here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nudity (initiated 12 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Xaosflux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 20:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References (initiated 2 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Xaosflux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 20:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This is probably not required at all, and I could probably close this myself, but I thought I'd play it safe and ask for someone here to come look and see if the discussion needs to continue (perhaps with broader advertising in relevant venues although I already did so, I believe, at WT:ALBUMS and WT:BEATLES). This has been going on for over six months, last edit over a month ago, and it appears there is a clear concensus at this time. LazyBastardGuy 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I just looked at it. If I were to close it now, it would be to state that no consensus had been reached (which means the articles should remain unchanged). You have roughly equal groups of people making strong arguments. One thing that you might do is point out that the unit of consistency on Wikipedia is the article, not the article type or Wikiproject, to allay people's concerns that merging these two articles would require them to merge others as well. You got one editor to change positions with reassurances about the cover art.- More good places to promote this RfC would be the talk pages of other Beatles albums. (I didn't see any note of this RfC in the WT:ALBUMS or WT:BEATLES archives.) You can also contact wikieditors who've participated in previous album merge discussions so long as you are careful to contact both those who supported and those who opposed such merges. If you've already tried all that, then yes close it yourself with a finding of no consensus. No one can object to you affirming that your own proposal didn't go through. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: For some reason, my two posts here and here were not archived. I can assure you, though, I did make them. LazyBastardGuy 00:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Didn't really doubt it. I notice that you say more about how long the dispute's been going on than what the dispute is. The post is supposed to be neutral regarding which side of the discussion readers should support but you're allowed to get persuasive when it comes to biasing them toward participating at all. saying that it's longstanding makes it sound drudgy with lots of boring posts to read (and it's actually quite short). "Should the article With the Beatles be merged with Beatlemania! With the Beatles? Proponents say that the albums are almost identical; opponents say that their cultural impacts merit separate articles (and have concerns about precedent). New voices welcome." If possible, name any specific policy that's been brought up. Also, you can promote the RfC at the talk pages of those policies (so long as you do so for policies on both sides of the issue).
- There's also the WP:feedback request service. You select your category, choose volunteers at random, and tell them you need additional eyes to evaluate roughly balanced sides and suggest new perspectives.
- But if you don't want to wait any longer, yes you've done your due diligence promoting this RfC and you can close it and move on if you see fit. Not every RfC produces a clear consensus even when promoted properly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think I'll keep it open a little while longer and take some of your suggestions regarding how to get new voices involved. I might close it myself if no one else does, although I'd rather someone uninvolved take the initiative. But thank you for your time. LazyBastardGuy 18:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be much appreciated if some uninvolved users could help close the RfC. Thanks, Mike V • Talk 19:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This content dispute has been going on since April and the outcome will probably affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. The RfC covers two issues: 1) Does the web site Westeros.org fit the expert source criteria given at WP:SPS and 2) is the disputed sentence non-trivial enough to include in the article regardless of how it is sourced? If you address both issues in your summary, there will (hopefully) not be anything left for the participants to fight over. Seven Eight editors have logged their responses to this RfC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
| Off-topic responses covered. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oathkeeper/Archive 1#RfC: Blog source--usable for facts? (initiated 12 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not necessary. This RfC timed out with all participants in agreement about what it meant. Please use any energy on the the RfC for which closure was requested. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think you might wish to recount. There was significant dissent as to the viability of the content. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Jack, this is the Ana Carol RfC. All participants, including the person who originally proposed using the blog source (myself), are in agreement not to use it. No one's contesting that that was the conclusion of the RfC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ahh, I see. Sorry, you've been forum-shopping at so many noticeboards that I frankly lost track. Yes, there was complete agreement not to use it at all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well not complete but a clear majority and a conclusion by which all participants are willing to abide. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Right; we weren't going to use it. So, let's go ahead and close that out. Sorry for presuming it was yet another misadventure on your part. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well not complete but a clear majority and a conclusion by which all participants are willing to abide. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ahh, I see. Sorry, you've been forum-shopping at so many noticeboards that I frankly lost track. Yes, there was complete agreement not to use it at all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Jack, this is the Ana Carol RfC. All participants, including the person who originally proposed using the blog source (myself), are in agreement not to use it. No one's contesting that that was the conclusion of the RfC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think you might wish to recount. There was significant dissent as to the viability of the content. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mesrop Mashtots#RfC for wording in the lead regarding the Georgian and Albanian alphabet (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the lede contain the following phrase:
He was also, according to a number of scholars and contemporaneous Armenian sources, the creator of the Caucasian Albanian and Georgian alphabets.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not done; it appears this proposal has already been implemented. There are only three participants in this RfC with insufficient discussion to arrive at a concrete consensus. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing the discussion, I JethroBT. I withdraw this closure request. Cunard (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Wellons (initiated 7 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Shelley Moore Capito's maiden name was "Shelley Wellons Moore". Is "Wellons" still a middle name for her (and therefore should be included in the full name provided in the intro to her bio)?
Please consider the earlier discussion Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Middle name in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done - Closed by User:S Marshall. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Is this quote by Joni Ernst relevant for her bio? (initiated 28 August 2014)? The last comment was made 9 September 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Robert McClenon (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 16:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Artpop#"Manicure" vs. "MANiCURE" (initiated 26 June 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Artpop#RfC: Should a song title be listed with non-standard capitalization? (initiated 10 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Involved editor here. I don't believe formal closure is necessary. This RfC was almost unanimous and the text has been stable on this issue for weeks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done - Consensus is against the non-standard capitalization. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox (initiated 30 August 2014)? An editor wrote: "This thread was archived by a bot. I have unarchived it. Someone should close it and judge consensus." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done - Consensus was against including the Hamas numbers as unreliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republican Party (United States)#More recent progressive wing (initiated 11 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote in the subsection Talk:Republican Party (United States)#Request for comments (initiated 17 August 2014):
Should the article include the names of prominent Republicans subsequent to 1976 who have been openly critical of the GOP because they believe the Party leadership's views are too far to the right? If so, how should they be described?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done - Rough consensus was not to include a list of names. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Can someone close this? Nobody has replied for some days, and the consensus is unclear. This is perhaps because I did not phrase the question precisely. Kingsindian (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Can someone close this? The RfC has run the full 30 days and has been delisted. Kingsindian (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done -- Euryalus (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Stale pornography-related AfDs
Would someone uninvolved please close the following:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April O'Neil (pornographic actress)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Marie
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alina Li
They have all been open for weeks; each longer than a week after each relist (and the first one was opened on September 2). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done. And that's enough porn for one day. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
This RM has run its course, and should be closed as appropriate by an administrator. RGloucester — ☎ 16:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically? (first initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This RM is twenty-six days old, and needs to be closed. Please do close it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
This discussion (in particular, the proposal for a site ban) has run its course and should be closed. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 20:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Please do not close until (at least) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tutelary is concluded. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)- The SPI is finished now, and this can be closed by an uninvolved administrator any time now. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done, by User:Euryalus. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- The SPI is finished now, and this can be closed by an uninvolved administrator any time now. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
This has just about run its course and I am requesting a formal statement of intent from Sitush at the ANI (at this point he tells people to look at his talk page). So at some point I'd like a formal close. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by 28bytes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 14:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Slakr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
It's been open 2 weeks, ample time for an XFD. The discussion has largely played out. If an uninvolved admin could close this behemoth down, that'd be great. --Jayron32 12:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done. --John (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Would appreciate an administrator closing this RfC, which has expired. I also would appreciate a review of the rather large amount of tagged unsourced material in this article.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes#RfC: Inclusion of Simpsons Movie (initiated 22 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should The Simpsons Movie be included in this list of episodes?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 14#Category:Literature by (X) women? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed I have closed this as no consensus, with a suggestion for possible further action. – Fayenatic London 23:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 20#Category:Fish of Great Britain? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed Despite my involvement, I closed this, as the revised proposal of 22 July took into account the objections initially raised, and it did not require an uninvolved editor to close it. – Fayenatic London 23:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Need a close and enforcement of consensus at a deletion review (initiated 25 August 2014)? Based on the user's contributions, the user has spent a lot of time at IPhone 6. Although there is no consensus for a topic ban, would an admin let the user know about the concerns the community expressed in the discussion and give a final warning that further disruption will result in a block? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Basically Done. They haven't edited since the 22nd of september and iPhone 6 is now an article, not a redirect. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
There's been a discussion which I think needs closed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Note to closing admin, preferably by an admin experienced in judging consensus regarding a matter of BLP sourcing. If I could request that the closer looks beyond head-counting and carefully weigh strength of argument, you'll forgive me, as this has been a problem in the past. Thank you, --John (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have reposted this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive208#John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS). Cunard (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
This RM discussions needs to be closed. No new comments have been made in the past few days. Please close it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by PBS (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kevin Sorbo#Ferguson Controversy (initiated 28 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Closed. Euryalus (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ed Miliband#Judaism RFC (initiated 30 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
The lead describes Edward Miliband as the first 'Jewish leader' of the Labour party. Miliband is ethnically Jewish, but not Jewish in the religious sense of the word; the infobox describes him as an atheist. Should this section of the lead be clarified to say Miliband is an ethnic Jew, rather than a religious Jew, so as not to suggest incorrectly that Miliband follows Judaism?
Option 1: Keep as it is. Option 2: Specify that Miliband is ethnically Jewish, not religiously Jewish.
Option 3: Remove from the lead altogether.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Closed -- Euryalus (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario#Splitting of this category (initiated 21 August 2014)? See Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario#RFC: A wider handling of the situation (initiated 29 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Proposal: We agree on a minimum size: any category by city and sport where we have that many entries, we allow the creation of the category. I think 100 sounds good." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Unichef/Michael Bersell (initiated 27 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done by xaosflux. Number 57 22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mercedesstonewall/Mason Brown (initiated 22 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:San Diego–Tijuana (initiated 17 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done by xaosflux. Number 57 22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Smooth jazz (initiated 15 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done by xaosflux. Number 57 22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kazi Nazrul Islam (initiated 15 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done by xaosflux. Number 57 22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 27#Category:Software modeling tools? Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Closed I have done this too. Only one now remains from July, see section below on July 30. – Fayenatic London 16:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at:
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 31#Category:Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, 2009–14
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 31#Category:Last Judgement and Judgment (Christianity)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 31#Kansas Territory
Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Closed I have closed all three. – Fayenatic London 16:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#Getpissy (initiated 12 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks (and probable trolling) on Talk:Historicity of Jesus (initiated 27 September 2014)? Please see the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-Ban of User:Fearofreprisal (initiated 3 October 2014). If there is consensus for a topic ban, please add the topic ban to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done Closed on 6 October by TParis. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Battleground mentality and disruptive editing by Coat of Many Colours (initiated 2 October 2014)? There is a clear consensus for "endorse block". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Seconded. This has gone on far too long. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Closed -- Euryalus (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I started a discussion on moving the article a few days back, although I had no issue with the current title. However, since people who do support a move insist I add "TV" to the parenthesis even though ABC was also a radio network, I want to withdraw the nomination and keep the current title as-is. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done by oknazevad. Number 57 22:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvoled administrator look at this discussion? Its passed the 7 days. The lone detractor added an 30-day RFC tag to it when things started going against him (a tactic he has used in previous discussions). I believe that bot the RFC tag and the claim that the discussion should be void are both tactics to try to keep a template on a technicality rather than to have the appropriate discussions necessary. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done Closed. Protonk (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Needs close before the archive bot kicks in. Begoon talk 12:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done This was closed by TParis. Thank you. Begoon talk 10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 (initiated 26 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. In your close, please consider the previous discussions related to archive.is:
- Wikipedia talk:Link rot#Archive.is (initiated 17 September 2012)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 104#Replacing WebCite citations with archive.is citations (initiated 24 July 2013)
- Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 8#RotlinkBot approved? (initiated 18 August 2013)
- Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RotlinkBot (initiated 18 August 2013)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#Mass rollbacks required (initiated 17 September 2013)
- Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC (initiated 20 September 2013)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Sophisticated mass vandalism from IP ranges? (initiated 2 October 2013)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 119#Proposal to Reduce the API limits to 1 edit/30 sec. for logged out users (initiated 2 October 2013)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255#WP:Archive.is RFC request for admin review of closure (initiated 31 October 2013)
- MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2014/03#archive.is/T5OAy (initiated 23 November 2013)
- MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013#archive.is (initiated 3 December 2013)
- MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Now what to do? and permanent link (initiated 27 February 2014)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Archive.is headache (initiated 8 May 2014)
- Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Archivedotisbot (initiated 10 May 2014)
- Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2 (initiated 2 June 2014)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Archive.is (initiated 25 June 2014)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Serious BLP violations by Kww, Hasteur, Werieth, and possibly others (initiated 30 June 2014)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#New Account Using AWB to Remove Links to archive.is based "the RFC" (initiated 1 July 2014)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth#Followup discussion about archive.is links (2 July 2014)
Here are discussions with the Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC closer:
- User talk:Hobit#Archive.is RFC closure unclear and permanent link (initiated 31 October 2013)
- User talk:Hobit#Question re: Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC and permanent link (initiated 11 November 2013)
- User talk:Hobit#Archive.is and permanent link (initiated 12 February 2014)
- User talk:Hobit#Archive.is matter and permanent link (initiated 19 May 2014)
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is discussion going on, but I think those can be moved to somewhere else.Forbidden User (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it might be best to wait a little bit more for results from Chris's email. I know I'm waiting to update my views based on it as well as the email correspondense link. I imagine I am not the only one. PaleAqua (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)- It's been almost a week with no real discussion and no updates. Withdrawing my wait request. PaleAqua (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Will someone please close this? There is discussion going on, but it isn't going anywhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's been almost a week with no real discussion and no updates. Withdrawing my wait request. PaleAqua (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done — wow. Talk about backlogged. :P --slakr\ talk / 11:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Will am administrator please assess the consensus on this request by User:HighKing to ease the topic ban? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt) 2. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Closed -- Euryalus (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fields Medal/Archive1#Table format (initiated 15 August 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Fields Medal#RFC (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not done - The format of the table has basically been agreed and is being tweaked in the usual wiki way. There was no massive disagreement. This thread doesn't need to be closed. Yaris678 (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I withdraw this closure request. Thank you for reviewing the request, Yaris678. Cunard (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2014–15 Glossop North End A.F.C. season (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Done, by Xaosflux. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Michelle Thomas/Archives/2014#Seriously? (initiated 17 September 2014)? There is a dispute about the consensus at Talk:Michelle Thomas/Archives/2014#Consensus. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Closed by User:S Marshall. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:OpenOffice.org#Second RfC, this time on NPOV (initiated 31 August 2014)? Please consider the RfC close at Talk:OpenOffice.org#RfC on the topic in your close if it is relevant. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- +1 for someone to close this. The RfC template was automatically removed last week. Most of the RfC contributions were made in the discussion section for some reason. --Tóraí (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done by S Marshall --Tóraí (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Renaming Notability (initiated 30 August 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by S Marshall. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Second Boer War#Request for comment (initiated 19 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the nations from which foreign volunteers came be listed in the infobox?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Done Drmies (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at:
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 30#Category:Unreferenced Fishes articles Closed
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 30#Category:Arkansas articles needing references
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 30#Category:Charlotte Hornets (1988-2002) Closed
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 30#Category:Deputy speakers Closed
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 30#Category:Akron Aeros Closed
Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have closed all but one, where I supported deletion after it was contested. – Fayenatic London 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion doesn't have be closed soon. However, in case that the discussion has become stale, I need an extremely neutral person. Moreover, I would strongly recommend the same person who is experienced on determining consensus, but experience is optional. --George Ho (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by S Marshall. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
After one week discussion, we have - in response to the proposal - "that 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq be renamed and moved to 2014 Iranian intervention in Iraq" 2 people who "oppose", 1 person who "weak opposes" and 1 person who "supports." Can a neutral and uninvolved editor please consider closing this RfC? DocumentError (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
This is now an WP:RM (altered as part of the agreement on the ANI you raised). The RM started on 9 October it will finish when the RM is closed by an independent editor/administrator after about seven days (around the 16 October). -- PBS (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, PBS. I didn't realize the clock restarted once the form was amended. DocumentError (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Dekimasu. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
After one week discussion, we have - in response to the question - "Should Hezbollah be included as a belligerent, including flag icon in the infobox?" 4 people who "support", 1 person who "weak supports" and 2 persons who "oppose." Can a neutral and uninvolved editor please consider closing this RfC? DocumentError (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done. De728631 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- It seems that you started this RfC here. Please read WP:Rfc and follow this instruction for each RfC you have initiated (sign and date or date):
- 3.Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template. Sign the statement with
~~~~(name and date) or~~~~~
- 3.Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template. Sign the statement with
- Please do this for all the RfCs you have started on that page. -- PBS (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies, PBS, I thought it was self-evident I started the RfC by the fact I was the first !vote, but I'll be glad to add my sig to the proposal line, as well. DocumentError (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- It my be self evident to humans but it is not self evident to the bot. The bot creates a list of RfCs by topic eg:
- RfCs introduction statements are meant to be neutral. Having you sign "Support" statement in the RfC list is not neutral. -- PBS (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't put "Support" in the RfC's introduction. I put it in the section called "Opinion in Brief," where it is appropriate to express opinions. My RfC introduction is neutrally worded (Should the section "Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq" be included in this article?) Thanks. DocumentError (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Everything down to the first signature appears in the list including the section heading "Options in Brief" and your support sentence. As I said it is not self-evident to the bot what you meant, it takes it literally (As the old graffiti said "My computer does what I tell it to do, not what I want it to do") -- PBS (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. What do I need to do? DocumentError (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I did not want you do anything, just to explain to you that the Bot takes everything down to the first signature, which means that it hovered up your opinion as well as you lead. It was more an explanation of what to do with future Rfcs. However as the bot did not seem to see your last changes, I've refactored the lead of the two entries on the talk page and in the list. If you do not approve of my refactoring then please revert my changes. -- PBS (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. What do I need to do? DocumentError (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Everything down to the first signature appears in the list including the section heading "Options in Brief" and your support sentence. As I said it is not self-evident to the bot what you meant, it takes it literally (As the old graffiti said "My computer does what I tell it to do, not what I want it to do") -- PBS (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't put "Support" in the RfC's introduction. I put it in the section called "Opinion in Brief," where it is appropriate to express opinions. My RfC introduction is neutrally worded (Should the section "Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq" be included in this article?) Thanks. DocumentError (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies, PBS, I thought it was self-evident I started the RfC by the fact I was the first !vote, but I'll be glad to add my sig to the proposal line, as well. DocumentError (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- There's actually no reason to close. 5 people have voted in support but 5 people have not made a consensus in support. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view, after all.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
been listed over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Deleted by kelapstick. De728631 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Has been relisted for over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Closed as Keep by RoySmith. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Can a uninvolved editor close this and assess the consensus?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by S Marshall. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
An outside uninvolved editor is needed to close this RfC. -- GreenC 17:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by S Marshall. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronn Torossian#RFC: mention of commentary in lead (initiated 4 August 2014)? Please consider Talk:Ronn Torossian#Relevance of political commentary in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 14#Robbery in lede RFC and Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RfC: Should article mention Brown had no (adult) criminal record?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 14#Robbery in lede RFC (initiated 2 September 2014) and Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RfC: Should article mention Brown had no (adult) criminal record? (initiated 8 September 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for both discussions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done with both. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? (initiated 9 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? If so, does this edit by JMJimmy help readers understand that ISO 8601 uses the Gregorian calender, or hinder that understanding? If the Gregorian calendar is used, is the wording as of 7 August 2014 (UT), JMJimmy's wording, or some other wording best?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done by another admin --slakr\ talk / 08:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)#RfC: Is the profanity in the article relevant? (initiated 13 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
The current version of the article uses very coarse language in the section dealing with social reactions to the match. The text at present is the following:
- Current Text: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several videos with titles such as 'Young Brazilians get fucked by entire German Soccer Team' were uploaded."
I propose that this section should be written in a more professional tone, and consider the following an improvement:
- Proposal: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several of these videos were transferred to their network with sexually suggestive titles."
Please let us know which of these two options are better and why.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 September#Budweiser (initiated 9 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- This move review discussion opened on September 9 and hasn't had any new comment since September 17. Thanks.--Cúchullain t/c 17:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done --slakr\ talk / 09:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? (initiated 23 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
When discussing fictional characters in a real world context, is it acceptable to refer to them with gendered prounouns, such as he and she, or should they be referred to as objects?
Example:
- He is a superhero who was created by Simon and Kirby.
- The character is a superhero that was created by Simon and Kirby.
One editor recommended WP:SNOW close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done --slakr\ talk / 11:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:OpenOffice.org#Requested moves (initiated 28 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- +1 for someone closing this. It involves a lengthy discussion between three editors in particular and two other contributions. It's been open for nearly three weeks and no further comments appear to be incoming. --Tóraí (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Pinging this thread. The related RfC above was closed by S Marshall. --Tóraí (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Dekimasu. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:WikiProject Biography#RfC: BDP in Biography template (initiated 20 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the Biography template be adjusted to include the "bdp=" parameter?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Not done This doesn't actually look like a RfC in need of closure so much as a discussion that people lost interest in. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Closure request withdrawn. Thank you for reviewing the discussion, Philosopher. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/30 SW (initiated 26 August 2014)? The last comment was made 31 August 2014.
The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done - Suspended by User:Beeblebrox due to inactivity of editor in question. Closer noted that RFC/U can be reopened if editor returns to editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56 (initiated 28 July 2014)?
The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Closed by User:Beeblebrox. Jehochman Talk 12:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin please review and approve or decline this request for Oshwah. Previously commented by admin Graeme Bartlett, but still open since 26 August 2014. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 12:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The RfC template has been removed because the RfC was over 30 days old, but the discussion has not come any nearer to a consensus. There are currently eight different ways the type of government might be described, each of which is opposed by a significant number of editors, and very few of which have even a bare majority in favour. Nevertheless, some neutral closer needs to come down in favour of one of these, otherwise it will be impossible to move forward. Scolaire (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done - Only Communist state had a majority, which is rough consensus. If another editor prefers a different choice, a new RFC with only 2 options would be appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#RFC Controversy about the policy section (initiated 26 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done - Closed by User:S Marshall as no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:European Conservatives and Reformists#Request for Comments (initiated 4 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "There is currently disagreement about how the lead and infobox should described the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR)." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done --slakr\ talk / 07:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Miroslav Klose#RfC on faith (initiated 28 August 2014)? The discussion concerns this edit to the article. The content removed in that edit is currently in the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done - Left in the statement that he is Catholic. Took out reference to meeting with Pope. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:GNU (disambiguation)#Add and delete articles? (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done - Closed each of the items proposed for addition and deletion. For details, see talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Proposal: Restrict use of "WMF" prefix or suffix in usernames to WMF staff (initiated 26 August 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done --slakr\ talk / 07:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting AWB access .28 User: OccultZone .29 (initiated 28 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Seconded. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done (yonder) by Callanecc (talk · contribs) --slakr\ talk / 07:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Obvious agreement to merge. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done --slakr\ talk / 08:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done by another admin --slakr\ talk / 08:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
This RFC/U was started on 11 September and hasn't had any new comments since 23 September. Worldedixor (talk · contribs · logs) has squandered his chance to resolve his issues informally with personal attacks. In the talk page a consensus was formed to have topic ban for Syrian Civil War/ISIL issues broadly construed. I'm concerned that he may come back (perhaps as a sock) and without a TBAN there won't be anything that can be done about it.~Technophant (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done. As discussed on the Talk page, if you want to request a topic ban, go to WP:AN. And don't speculate about another editor coming back as a sock. It's a personal attack and you should retract it. I've closed the RfC/U due to inactivity. As an aside, I've never closed one before, so if I didn't follow the procedures properly, someone be kind enough to let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Bbb23 (talk · contribs), thank you for closing the RfC. For future reference, the instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing.
Here are two examples RfC/U closures: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche.
Would you add a closing statement to the RfC? The close could mention that (i) you are closing due to inactivity, (ii) your summary of the consensus regarding the editor's problematic behavior (if any), (iii) the support for a topic ban at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Worldedixor (I am basing this off Technophant's above post; I have not read the discussion), and (iv) that community topic bans cannot be enacted at RfC/U and requests should go to WP:AN or WP:ANI per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions. Cunard (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Cunard, thanks for your comments. I (slavishly) followed the instructions. Unlike other closes, the close for inactivity does not say to make any comments, just to archive it. I did put a comment in the archive table that it was closed for inactivity. All the other issues have nothing to do with the reason why I closed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the instructions say just to archive it, but I think an uninvolved admin's summary of the consensus would be helpful if future discussions (like a possible community topic ban mentioned by Technophant in the opening post) refer back to this RfC/U. Instead of having to read the entire discussion, editors could refer to your summary.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche were also inactive when they were closed.
Would you consider adding a closing summary to the RfC/U? If you don't want to, then no worries, I withdraw this request. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Cunard, I'm going to leave it alone, although I appreciate your comments about what happens sometimes in practice, even if it's not per the instructions. Putting aside the procedural issue, I don't believe there was such a consensus. It was just talked about on the Talk page mainly. I didn't see any consensus in the RfC/U. It was mainly this odd back-and-forth between the certifiers and Worldedixor.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought there might have been a consensus based on Technophant's opening post. ("In the talk page a consensus was formed to have topic ban for Syrian Civil War/ISIL issues broadly construed.")
The dispute between the certifiers and Worldedixor appears very acrimonious. I hope Technophant won't make this assertion in the future based on your evaluation of the consensus (or lack of it). Cunard (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought there might have been a consensus based on Technophant's opening post. ("In the talk page a consensus was formed to have topic ban for Syrian Civil War/ISIL issues broadly construed.")
- Cunard, I'm going to leave it alone, although I appreciate your comments about what happens sometimes in practice, even if it's not per the instructions. Putting aside the procedural issue, I don't believe there was such a consensus. It was just talked about on the Talk page mainly. I didn't see any consensus in the RfC/U. It was mainly this odd back-and-forth between the certifiers and Worldedixor.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the instructions say just to archive it, but I think an uninvolved admin's summary of the consensus would be helpful if future discussions (like a possible community topic ban mentioned by Technophant in the opening post) refer back to this RfC/U. Instead of having to read the entire discussion, editors could refer to your summary.
- Cunard, thanks for your comments. I (slavishly) followed the instructions. Unlike other closes, the close for inactivity does not say to make any comments, just to archive it. I did put a comment in the archive table that it was closed for inactivity. All the other issues have nothing to do with the reason why I closed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Bbb23 (talk · contribs), thank you for closing the RfC. For future reference, the instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing.
Commentary on the debate, user conduct, or ancillary matters are all inappropriate for this request page. I, JethroBT drop me a line
|
|---|
Content following was moved to User talk:Technophant. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Creation Museum#RfC A. A. Gill (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done, Cunard. Please file this one under "much ado about nothing". Drmies (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Inclusion of future job positions in infobox, list, etc. (initiated 28 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
This dispute has to do with the appointment of Catholic bishops, but I am seeking a wider consensus, because in over three years none has been reached, and there has been no central place to discuss it exhaustively.
If there is no consensus in the discussion, perhaps the closer can offer the RfC's participants advice about how to better frame and publicize the discussion to encourage participation by more uninvolved editors. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done in terms of closing the motion. Samsara 15:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anjem Choudary/Archive6#RfC: Anjem Choudary and Partying (initiated 26 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done Cunard, this was easy. You could have closed this months ago. Parrot of Doom, I congratulate you on your tenacity. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Obvious disagreement. 31 days gone, no one has commented. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Restored closure request removed here. The close requester believes in good faith that a close would be helpful. I agree. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done Consensus opposes the merge. No consensus yet on moving spin-off article to WikiQuote. Samsara 06:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Would a fair minded, uninvolved party please assess the consensus of this survey? Further relevant discussion that preceded and provides context for the RFC can be found here. VictorD7 (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
After one week discussion, we have - in response to the question - "Should the section "Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq" be included in this article?" 5 people who "support", 1 person who "opposes" and 1 person (since retired from WP) who "mildly opposes." Can a neutral and uninvolved editor please consider closing this RfC? DocumentError (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Animal name move requests
It would be great if someone could sort through one or more of the following move requests related to animal names, some of which have been open since August: Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014, Talk:Anglo-Nubian#Requested moves, Talk:Flemish Giant#Requested moves, Talk:Harz Red mountain cattle#Requested move, Talk:Canadian Speckle Park#Requested moves, Talk:Corsican Cattle#Requested moves, Talk:Asturian Mountain#Requested move, Talk:Dutch Landrace#Requested moves, Talk:American Sable#Requested moves, Talk:Blue Grey#Requested moves, Talk:Danish Protest pig#Requested move, Talk:Bronze turkey#Requested move, and Talk:Buff turkey#Requested move. Help would be much appreciated. Dekimasuよ! 17:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James Randi Educational Foundation#Is info on Randi's income from a primary source allowable? (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gina Rinehart/Archives/2014#Chairman/chairwoman/chairperson (initiated 12 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Time to settle this once and for all, so we can stop this edit war. I have locked the article so you can't even add how much more money she has today, before you settle this. (Ms. Rineheart, if you don't mind, I could do with some money.) Simple: chairman or chairwoman or chairperson?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done Result: Chairman. Samsara 21:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prem Rawat#RfC on first sentence of the article (initiated 20 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Is it OK to replace the first sentence of the Prem Rawat article by "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, inspirational speaker and Ambassador for Peace." — and if so, do we need additional references for that sentence, either re-using one or more of the 138 references already in the article, or new ones suggested above on this talk page and/or in Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#'Ambassador of Peace'?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Bot has removed RfC template [5] --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done: While Cwobeel suggested "the results are self-evident" [6], I closed it. [7]
- I leave the request on this talk page, lest someone wants to review my closure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, saw only now that someone else had already requested closure, so merging the two sections on this page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)#RfC (initiated 24 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Does New York Magazine described Jones as “America’s leading conspiracy theorist”,[14] and the Southern Poverty Law Center describes him as "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America."[15] About being labeled a "conspiracy theorist", Jones has stated that he finds himself "proud to be listed as a thought criminal against Big Brother."[14] belong in the lead of this BLP as opposed to its prior position in the body of the BLP?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ashok Chakra Award#RfC: Correct Spelling? (initiated 24 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of extinct mammals#RfC: Inclusion criteria (initiated 15 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the inclusion criteria for this list be amended to include only extinctions occurring on or after the year 1500 CE?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done --Tóraí (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tom Paulin#RfC (initiated 8 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Is the "Controversy" section in this BLP as of 17:00 8 Sep 2014 [8] of proper, insufficient, or excessive weight to the entire BLP? Does the section as constituted comply with WP:NPOV?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - Controversy heading was deleted, but much of the controversy material is still there. This appears to be consistent with rough consensus. No change at this time needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Crossover thrash#Crossover bands (initiated 22 September 2014)? Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - What little consensus we have is against the deletions. No change needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity/Archive 1#Request for comments on Open Letter to Angela Merkelc (initiated 6 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done A no consensus result. Samsara 06:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eagles (band)#RFC: Genres in the infobox (initiated 5 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
*Should the infobox genre list all the genres also listed in the article, for which anyone could find a reference OR
- Should the infobox genre parameter be reduced to the most general genre, in this case rock
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - Unanimous to list only rock Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor administrator assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Edit War (initiated 24 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- This doesn't appear to be a content dispute, but a stale report of edit warring. Needs an administrative close. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not done The discussion is on-going as part of a wider RfC at Template_talk:Track_listing#Track_numbers_for_vinyl_albums. --Tóraí (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Proposal to elevate Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles to guideline status. (initiated 22 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done --Tóraí (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Proposal 2 re "Avoiding personal attacks" (initiated 19 September 2014)? Please consider the RfC close at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 12#Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks" in your close. This discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - Rough consensus against refactoring the policy. Left as is. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 October#Sex Tape (film) (initiated 16 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done --Tóraí (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved individual help close this RfC? If you do not feel that the consensus is clear, it is requested that you defer the closure to a bureaucrat. Thank you, Mike V • Talk 00:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Mike V Gave it my best shot. If you have any further comments, let me know. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done Samsara 05:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please close this - it's been open for well over a month, and is turning increasingly acrimonious. The closer might also want to consider the conduct of one particular editor with regards to WP:TWINKLEABUSE on the article itself. Cheers, Number 57 08:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done by Ricky81682. Number 57 10:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved an experienced administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:2015 Formula One season#Common sense regarding Vergne? Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done Samsara 09:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your time.Tvx1 (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Request for uninvolved editor to close this. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Request for 2nd opinion. I'm not sure that an uninvolved editor could have read through the thousands of words in the talk commentary and tallied the results in just 12 seconds, and make an informed closure. --Light show (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Minutes, not seconds. :-) Either way, Done. Sunrise (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Minutes, not seconds. :-) Either way,