Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 15

< Wikipedia:Closure requests
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Cunard in topic 2014
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20
2014 entries

2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago259 comments54 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 12

Even though this from over a month ago, there are still a couple of discussions here that haven't been closed yet. JDDJS (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The last two have been   Closed by Nyttend (talk · contribs). – Fayenatic London 17:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Request for comments: Inclusion of more than "theological historical criticism" scholarship

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Request for comments: Inclusion of more than "theological historical criticism" scholarship (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 35#Request for comments: Inclusion of more than "theological historical criticism" scholarship. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for comment and Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for Comment 2

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for comment (initiated 25 August 2014) and Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for Comment 2 (initiated 31 August 2014)? The opening poster for the first discussion wrote: "Should this article be redirected to Ancient Macedonians?" The opening poster for the second discussion wrote:

Should the lead sentence of this article call the ancient Macedonian kingdom a "kingdom", without further specification, or a "Greek kingdom"?

Please consider the later related discussions Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for CONSENSUS which respects history, reliable sources and common sense and Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#REQUEST FOR A TRULY NEUTRAL CONSENSUS in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  Not done - Possible disruption of the RFC process has been reported at WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Link to AN discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#RFC Problem at Macedonia (ancient kingdom). If closing these two discussions would not be helpful, then I withdraw these closure requests. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Star Wars#RfC: Should the template be divided into canon/non-canon sections?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Star Wars#RfC: Should the template be divided into canon/non-canon sections? (initiated 1 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

As can be seen in the discussions on Template talk:Star Wars, there is a dispute as to whether Template:Star Wars should only be divided by media type, or whether it should be further divided into canon/non-canon sections.

If there is no consensus, please consider advising the participants how to better publicize the discussion to encourage participation by more uninvolved editors. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  Not done - No consensus due to too little discussion. Only 2 !votes. Advised to publicize the RFC in three Wikiprojects. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done by Robert McClenon. Cunard (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 5

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

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 or relisted. – Fayenatic London 17:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner)#Survey on infobox

  • Don't want to close it myself while (semi-)involved, and for the general sensitivity of the matter.
  • Although the outcome of the survey appears unanimous at first glance, and for the article in question the apparent outcome has already been implemented ([1]), I'd request a more formal closure of the survey itself, for the main reason proferred by the supporters: "An infobox is consistent with almost all the articles in template:Anton Bruckner. They should all have a similar infobox since it is highly likely that a reader interested in one of Bruckner's works will be interested in other works, and will expect a "one of a series" visual identity." So, does this survey imply Bruckner composition articles can be generally "infoboxed", or would additional and/or more general surveys be needed for that? If so, advice on how to conduct these would be more than welcome (...avoiding wikidrama)
  • That this would already have been settled without formal closure to the survey, can be seen as incorrect here --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 Y Closed. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

This RfC concerns the editorial decision of whether an article about a specific episode of the television show Game of Thrones should name the exact chapters of the novel(s) upon which it was based. The results are likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. This dispute has been going on since April and most of the participants seem eager for its end. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Endorse closure request per WP:SNOW. See the previous RfC close at Talk:Oathkeeper/Archive 1#RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content?. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Not to get redundant, but this is likely to be an easy one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  Done - It was an easy one. Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sigmund Freud/Archive 11

The RfC ended a week ago on Freud and bot have removed the template. Could someone offer a close to the RfC which has ended over a week ago? FelixRosch (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done - This request is duplicated by another request for closure, shown below. Consensus is to reduce the length of the infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Paulin

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tom Paulin (initiated 8 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Is the "Controversy" section in this BLP as of 17:00 8 Sep 2014 [2] 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 - The Controversies header has been deleted, but most of the text has been retained. The current version seems to be the consensus version and can be retained. If anyone disagrees, a new RFC can be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 13#RfC: Should ages be mentioned in the lead?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 13#RfC: Should ages be mentioned in the lead? (initiated 4 September 2014)? Two other RfCs about the article have been closed recently: Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 14#Robbery in lede RFC and Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 16#RfC: Should article mention Brown had no (adult) criminal record?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done - Consensus favors including the age of Brown in the lede. A weaker consensus favor including the age of Wilson in the lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sigmund Freud#Changes to Freud Infobox size of 44 names

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sigmund Freud#Changes to Freud Infobox size of 44 names (initiated 9 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Those who wish to Support the short number of names written in the Infobox should indicate their position as a "Support" comment, and those who wish to maintain a list of 44 names should indicate "Oppose" concerning a shorter version.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done - Consensus is to reduce the number of names in the infobox. Prior to the close, there was edit-warring, with one editor shortening the infobox, because consensus had been reached, and another reverting the infobox, because the RFC had not been closed to finalize the consensus. The comments did not specify what names to include. Any specific issues about names to include should go to dispute resolution (third opinion, moderated dispute resolution, another RFC). Close results posted to primary talk page as well as archive. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nofel Izz#Reviewing sources with some suggestions for rewrites

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nofel Izz#Reviewing sources with some suggestions for rewrites (initiated 3 August 2014)? See Talk:Nofel Izz#RfC, where the opening poster wrote: "Could editors please review the sources and comment on their quality? (All the sources are listed above, though there may be a few listed that have since been removed from the article.)" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done - Sources were reviewed and added. There is rough consensus that the article has been improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Follow-up. The original poster says that he or she didn't really get the answers requested about the reliability of the sources as per BLP policy, but will take those questions to the BLP noticeboard. I agree that that is the correct follow-up. RFC did result in some improvement of the article, and is closed, but there are still questions about sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#RfC: How should music BLPs approach the term "singer-songwriter"?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#RfC: How should music BLPs approach the term "singer-songwriter"? (initiated 20 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Closed --Mdann52talk to me! 09:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Boxcar#RfC: Merge Covered goods wagon article into Boxcar

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Boxcar#RfC: Merge Covered goods wagon article into Boxcar (initiated 9 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I propose that the article Covered goods wagon is merger into article Boxcar." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done - Closed by User:RGloucester as consensus against the merge, because there are significant differences. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Arctic sea ice decline#RfC: Ice-free summer?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Arctic sea ice decline#RfC: Ice-free summer? (initiated 19 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should reliably-sourced predictions of people debating predicted effects climate change be included in the article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done Sunrise (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Labour Party (UK)#"Democratic socialism"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Labour Party (UK)#"Democratic socialism" (initiated 13 September 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Labour Party (UK)#Request for comment (initiated 19 September 2014), where the opening poster wrote:

Should the "ideology" field of the infobox include "democratic socialism" in addition to "social democracy"? You will find arguments in favour and against in the above discussion thread.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Closed --Mdann52talk to me! 09:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Proposing changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Proposing changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review (initiated 12 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Closed --Mdann52talk to me! 09:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Recent revert

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Recent revert (initiated 10 September 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Consensus#RfC, where the opening poster wrote:

The purpose of this RfC is to determine the current community consensus regarding a specific piece of wording: "winning an argument" versus "implementing a preferred version".

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done - The wording is to be left as "winning an argument", based on consensus. That wording is meant to discourage battleground editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 54#Proposal: Include mobile apps without assertion of importance in A7

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain (initiated 8 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done by User:Fram. General sanctions established on units of measurement in United Kingdom. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Proposal to remove the topic ban of Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Proposal to remove the topic ban of Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics (initiated 20 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done by User: Ricky81682. No consensus to remove the topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive860#Request to lift a hastily placed block

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive860#Request to lift a hastily placed block (initiated 19 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done by Euryalus on 26 October 2014 [3]. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye (initiated 20 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Something happened to this thread. It is neither on the AN/I page (as the search says it is) nor an archive. Confused as to what happened. ~Technophant (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  Done by Euryalus - see [4]. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ayers Rock (band)

I'm looking for someone to close an RfC associated with a mediation case. Although only four additional editors participated, I think there's enough common ground for an uninvolved editor to provide a summary of consensus. The original parties to the case (which was extended once already) have agreed to early closure. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The parties have asked that I simply close it myself, which I will do shortly. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  Done - RFM and associated RFCs have been closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3

Perhaps this should be closed or at least re-examined by an uninvolved admin. It was closed by an admin with the abusefilter right, User:Slakr; to me that is questionable, since it's about the abuse filter. I haven't undone the closure, but it sure seems improper to me; I don't know where this would be discussed, perhaps it's been mentioned somewhere else; it's hard (by design) to find an appropriate place to question a closure. I have no specific complaints; I haven't double checked the closer's work, but still a less involved admin should review it, IMO.--Elvey(t•c) 06:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Revoke sanctions pertaining to Singaporean election

This discussion seems to have come to conclusion, so it would be nice if an administrator could close it and implement it. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done by RGloucester already on 6 November. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#RfC: Should a tag be placed at the top of this article?

The discussion may have reached consensus. --George Ho (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

 Y Closed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shock site (4th nomination)

Requesting an experienced Admin to review this AfD on its merits, not the "vote tally". It seems odd that a barely notable subject has so much support, yet no one is willing to improve the article's quality or expand its content or sourcing. None of the members of either project that the article falls under will substantiate its encyclopedic value. Granted, there are sources available, but after over 12 years of existence the article is little more than List article. If the Examples section were to be removed, the article would be a stub. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

N.b. I closed the discussion on 6 November 2014 with a keep result (diff), but it was reverted by User:Scalhotrod (diff). The discussion was not closed upon any sort of "tally" or !vote count; my close was based upon the merits of the arguments in the discussion relative to Wikipedia's notability guidelines and policies. The consensus in the discussion is quite clear to retain the article in this case. User:Scalhotrod: please note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon available sources about a topic, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. NorthAmerica1000 11:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  Done Closed again as keep by User:Deor. NorthAmerica1000 02:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Anita Sarkeesian#Request for Comment: Video by the American Enterprise Institute

Would an uninvolved admin or experienced editor close the RFC? It seems a consensus has emerged and there have been few new comments for over a week.--Cúchullain t/c 13:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done Sunrise (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 4 1

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

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)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 8#Category:Durrani Empire people‎‎‎

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

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)

Talk:Chevalier d'Eon#RfC: Should the historic figure of the Chevalier d'Éon be referred to as a man or a woman?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chevalier d'Eon#RfC: Should the historic figure of the Chevalier d'Éon be referred to as a man or a woman? (initiated 20 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

The Chevalier d'Éon, was an 18th century French diplomat, spy and soldier, whose first 49 years were spent as a man, and whose last 33 years were spent as a woman. Were the article to be covered by Biographies of living persons then the personal pronoun "she" would be appropriate, however for historic figures the choice is unclear and this has been subject to discussion and change in the article for the last 5 years. Should the article use "he" or "she" throughout, or a mixed approach?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done - There is no consensus except that this is an edge case. There is no consensus to override the MOS, according to which she should be referred to as female, because that was her gender identity for the last 33 years. Since there is no consensus to override the MOS, the MOS does apply. Use the female pronouns. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive860#Topic-ban request for User:Der Statistiker in Paris articles.

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-ban request for User:Der Statistiker in Paris articles.? An editor wrote:

WARNING This case was closed by an admin and moved to the archives: [5], but ThePromander, who is engaged in a personal feud here, has resurrected this case by removing it from the archive and pasting it here. WP:HARASS? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Closed [6]. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive860#Topic-ban request for User:Der Statistiker in Paris articles. has not been closed. Cunard (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Not only was that case not closed, I'm considering reopening them because of repeat behaviour (outlined here [7]) in spite of clear warning here [8] concerning this[9] and another similar request[10]. I've asked the concerned admin for advice on this, and notified another later-involved admin about it, but any further opinion would be welcome. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and the above 'warning' was just a tu quoique attempt to paint the case-opener in a bad light; the case 'closed by an admin' claim is untrue: it was bot-archived. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Closed. Those two threads were both implicitly closed with my comment here [11], and the subsequent admin consultation between me and Drmies [12]. Please let this be archived now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 47#Date ranges as titles and Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 48#Proposal/question: Should we disambiguate year-range work titles?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 47#Date ranges as titles (initiated 1 July 2014) and the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 48#Proposal/question: Should we disambiguate year-range work titles? (initiated 8 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done unarchived and closed as disambiguate Gaijin42 (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 11#Samantha Brennan

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 11#Samantha Brennan? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done by Sandstein. Number 57 19:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Formula One season#RFC: FP1 drivers

Could an uninvolved an experienced administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Formula One season#RFC: FP1 drivers? Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done by Kudpung. Number 57 19:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Vivekananda#Requested move

6 support including the nominator, more than 24 hours have been passed, no oppose. Wikipedia:SNOW Bladesmulti (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  Not done I don't see the harm in waiting seven days, plus an opposer has appeared. Number 57 11:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Seven days have now passed. Cunard (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  Done by Philg88. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Arab Winter

The following sections should have reached consensus: "Current title stable?" and "Merge to Arab spring". Currently, the article is nominated for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  Not done - Recommend waiting until AFD is closed. The two questions largely overlap with the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Link to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab Winter.

Link to discussions: Talk:Arab Winter#Current title stable? and Talk:Arab Winter#Merge to Arab spring. Cunard (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, the AFD is closed as "Kept". --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  Done both. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC (initiated 1 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Should the statement "On Social Security, which Ernst wants to privatize Ernst said said, "Within 20 years, the system will be broke," which isn't even close to resembling reality." be reflected in this BLP?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done - Rough consensus against including. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC on a "bold edit"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC on a "bold edit" (initiated 1 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Is this edit proper? An article in Yahoo News reported that at a January 2014 GOP forum in Montgomery County, Iowa, Ernst warned that Agenda 21, the U.N.'s 1992 voluntary action plan for sustainable development, could force Iowa farmers off their land, dictate what cities Iowans must live in, and control how Iowa citizens travel from place to place, stating that “The United Nations has imposed this upon us, and as a U.S. senator, I would say, ‘No more. No more Agenda 21.’ Community planning — to the effect that it is implementing eminent domain and taking away property rights away from individuals" <ref>{{cite web|last1=Shiner|first1=Meredith|title=Will Joni Ernst’s flirtations with the political fringe haunt her in November?|url=http://news.yahoo.com/will-joni-ernst-s-flirtations-with-the-political-fringe-haunt-her-in-november-223054974.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory|publisher=Yahoo News|accessdate=13 August 2014}}</ref> (bolding indicates the edit) 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done Rough consensus against inclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bible#RFC: Article devoted exclusively to the Christian Bible

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bible#RFC: Article devoted exclusively to the Christian Bible (initiated 4 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)   Done - No consensus for change. If another editor wants a consensus, publicizing a new RFC better might be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Formula One season#RFC: FP1 drivers

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Formula One season#RFC: FP1 drivers (initiated 30 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done by Kudpung. Number 57 19:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Track listing#Track numbers for vinyl albums

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Track listing#Track numbers for vinyl albums (initiated 20 August 2014)? See the subsection Template talk:Track listing#RfC regarding track listings (initiated 1 October 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done Number 57 19:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 116#WP:BRD as essay

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 116#WP:BRD as essay (initiated 6 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

As far as I can tell, there is pretty wide agreement that WP:BRD is a good thing, that things work a lot smoother when it's followed by all parties. Why, then, is it defined as only essay? When someone deviates from BRD in a contentious situation, and someone else calls him on it citing BRD, and he says, "Well, that's only an essay", what are the appropriate response and reaction to that? Do we have to go to talk just to establish consensus that BRD is to be followed?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done - No consensus to elevate to guideline or policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Trypophobia#Removed_Image.

It has been open for more than a year, and the last comments made over 2 months ago. Could someone officially close it? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)   Done - There was something peculiar about the RFC tag so that the bot never pulled it. I have closed the RFC with a finding of no consensus but no recent objection to the hiding of the image. RFC tag has been pulled. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 28

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done Number 57 17:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 30

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done all three. Number 57 17:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 4

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

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)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 21

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  Closed – Fayenatic London 21:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 17

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  Closed – Fayenatic London 20:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 18

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  Closed – Fayenatic London 22:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation (initiated 30 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

As a side-effect of using Module:Citation/CS1 to render the Citation template, all the warning messages issued for Citation Style 1 will now be issued for Citation. (Many of these warning messages are not turned on by default yet.) This means that editors who use the Citation template will have to consult Help:Citation Style 1 to determine the acceptable parameter values. Does the user community ratify this change?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This does not appear to require administration, thus I recommend finding a template-editor to assess and close it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Now archived at Template talk:Citation/Archive 7#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  Done Closed as no consensus; no action taken. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates? (initiated 30 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 113#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates?. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  Done. Closed as no consensus. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout#AFD history

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout#AFD history (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team/Userright RfC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team/Userright RfC (initiated 30 August 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. An editor wrote:

And another reminder about the RFC for a global group to supersede this one (see m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group for that. Also, regarding the above - the edit filter was already set up but needs to be modified to meet en.wiki (it was simply copied from Commons).

Please mention that m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group may supersede the userright set up in this RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  Not done The local user permission has already been implemented (I know, because I have it); Rjd0060 has stated that they are working with stewards to implement the global permission. A close here is on the soon-to-be defunct local permission is unneeded. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Distinguishing between New Pages Patrol reviews and AfC reviews

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Distinguishing between New Pages Patrol reviews and AfC reviews (initiated 2 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment Not archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 114#Distinguishing between New Pages Patrol reviews and AfC reviews. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#AfD/IAR review

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#AfD/IAR review (initiated 2 October 2014)? After closing the discussion, please leave a link to your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Saturday Comes Sunday (2nd nomination). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done Drmies (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sam Brownback#Significant enough for lead?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sam Brownback#Significant enough for lead? (initiated 20 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Is the following statement significant enough in the context of Sam Brownback's career to warrant inclusion in the lead of his bio, as described in the MOS?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done Drmies (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Julian calendar#RFC: Is the Julian a reform of Egyptian calendar?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian calendar#RFC: Is the Julian a reform of Egyptian calendar? (initiated 2 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Is the Julian calendar a reform of the Egyptian calendar, as asserted in these edits by User:Rarevogel, rather than a reform of the Roman calendar?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done Formerip (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#RfC: Are particular sentences in this article synthesis?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at:

  1. Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#RfC: Are particular sentences in this article synthesis? (initiated 14 September 2014)
  2. Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#RfC: Extraneous quote (initiated 21 September 2014)
  3. Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#RfC: Overemphasis of negative material (initiated 25 September 2014)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done Formerip (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ed Miliband#Should Miliband's notable father be mentioned in the lead, as his notable brother is?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ed Miliband#Should Miliband's notable father be mentioned in the lead, as his notable brother is? (initiated 27 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)   Done WaggersTALK 15:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Corona del Mar High School#Request for Comment on Corona del Mar High School hacking incident

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Corona del Mar High School#Request for Comment on Corona del Mar High School hacking incident (initiated 9 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

The article includes references to controversies connected with Corona del Mar High School, including an incident where a tutor helped students hack the school's computers to change their grades. This incident in particular (as revealed on the talk page) is reported in over a dozen news sources (the majority coming up in just the first three pages of a general Google search), more the sources national than not. Should the material be removed as "disparaging", undue weight and/or "bad coverage"; should it be allowed per WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:NOTCENSORED; or should it be given its own article?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done Sunrise (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Proposal to change the format of RfPP

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Proposal to change the format of RfPP (initiated 6 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Not done A formal closure isn't really necessary, as the outcome is clear. I also checked on this here. Sunrise (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Authority to topic ban?

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Authority to topic ban? (initiated 2 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No, a community consensus was not sought; general input was simply sought and given for a single action by Bishonen at the time. It was   Closed or archived sometime back, and there is no need to raise that one again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist is exactly right, that was it. I wasn't looking to establish some instruction creep for WP:BAN (which would be better done at WT:BAN), but merely to seek advice in a specific case, and I got it. Here, I thanked people for their input and noted that I had decided what to do and implemented it. My note was probably not as prominent as it should have been, and the way the next person threaded theirs made mine almost invisible. And indeed people went on posting, with no-longer-needed further advice. In hindsight, I should have closed it instead of just saying "OK, all done, going to bed now", but, well, I was sleepy. There's no need to assess consensus. Bishonen | talk 12:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Request for consensus

Could an uninvolved administrator evaluate consensus here, and take appropriate action? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done Yoninah (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:World War II#Request for comment: WWII infobox

Can an administrator evaluate and execute the consensus here? Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done Number 57 17:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_10#Sarbajit_Roy

Can an administrator please evaluate and execute the consensus here.Thank you.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Number 57 17:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:lift (force)

Can an administrator or experienced closer please assess the consensus at the discussion, which begins at Talk:Lift (force)#L=-dp/dt? Thanks. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)   Done - There was no RFC and so no real request for consensus, but there does appear to be consensus that the discussions have been resolved. The original issue had been a comment that humans cannot fully explain why airfoils generate lift. That statement was philosophical rather than scientific, because a mathematical explanation is good enough for most scientific purposes. I have boxed three threads, two of them long. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)\

Thank you for closing the "Limits of human understanding" section but that was not the item of contention that generated the original request for closure :
An interminable discussion at Talk:Lift (force), running across many topic headings, seems to have run its course. Could an uninvolved editor take a look and close it? It is about lift equalling the rate of change of vertical momentum of the air, so some understanding of such ideas might be helpful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Lift_.28force.29 )
The issue at hand is whether to include "The Statement" ("The resulting force upwards is equal to the time rate of change of momentum of the air downwards") in the article. Discussion began as one of many items in the now closed "Release Candidate" section and continued in the following sections. Please re-open the request for closure, and sorry about the confusion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 20

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done by Fayenatic london and Good Olfactory. Number 57

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 23

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

These have now all been   Closed by multiple admins. – Fayenatic London 17:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 24

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done by Good Olfactory. Number 57 17:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 25

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

One to go. – Fayenatic London 10:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Done by Good Olfactory. Number 57 17:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 26

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

3 to go. – Fayenatic London 18:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Now all done by Good Olfactory. Number 57 17:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 27

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done by Good Olfactory. Number 57 17:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban for UrbanVillager

Would an experienced editor admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban for UrbanVillager (initiated 31 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans are an admin function. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done Drmies (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Retartist/hall of infamy

I want to be able to move the page Retartist (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you're asking for. In any case, the MfD was   Closed by Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) so I don't think ANRFC has any actions to take here. Sunrise (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Richard O'Dwyer#RFC -- TVShack.net definition

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Richard O'Dwyer#RFC -- TVShack.net definition (initiated 24 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Should TVShack.net be defined as a "search engine," "linking site," or "website"?"

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done Formerip (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 8

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

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)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 9#Category:Writers by ethnic or national descent

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 9#Category:Writers by ethnic or national descent? 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)

  Done by Good Olfactory. Number 57 18:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#RfC: Proposed revert to disambiguated title and Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#Requested move

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#RfC: Proposed revert to disambiguated title (initiated 25 September 2014) and Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#Requested move (initiated 15 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done. RM previously closed by User:BD2412. I've also closed the RfC, just for the sake of it. Formerip (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Territorial disputes in the South China Sea#Ethnic minorities

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Territorial disputes in the South China Sea#Ethnic minorities (initiated 16 September 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Territorial disputes in the South China Sea#Request for comment (initiated 24 September 2014), where the opening poster wrote:

Should the content in the section Ethnic minorities in the Philippines and Vietnam by removed entirely, reduced, kept as is, or expanded? Please see the discussion above regarding previous debate regarding this topic.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done Number 57 18:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dado Pršo#RfC: include the presumed birth name in the article lead section or not?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dado Pršo#RfC: include the presumed birth name in the article lead section or not? (initiated 27 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done Number 57 18:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Colourisation of images

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Colourisation of images (initiated 15 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

There is a developing trend for colleagues to colourise b&w images and use the new version in articles. This is often done via Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop.

There are two types of case where this happens:

I think we should develop a clear and agreed policy on when such images may or may not be used, and how and when the fact that a colourised image is shown must be declared.

The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There was discussion, but, partly because the RFC did not request !votes, there is no real conclusion. Either the RFC can be closed without consensus, or another closer can try to tease consensus out of it, or a new RFC can be posted that requests !votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Votes are not required for an RfC to reach a conclusion. Would another closer try to find a consensus from this discussion, even if it is "no consensus"? Cunard (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Done There is a consensus to allow use of colorized images in cases where use of the image is first discussed on the talk page of the article the image is to be used on. Cases of no consensus will assume the colorized image should not be used in favor of the B&W version. All colorized images must be properly attributed as derivative works of the original and should only be used in cases where there is little to no OR involved in the colorization such as cases where a high quality B&W is colorized based on a low quality color image or based on a non-controversial reliable description where the threshold of originality on copyrighted images wouldn't be exceeded. There was mention of possibly adding a line to a few different policy pages, but none of them gained any specific support. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:OpenOffice#RfC: How/if to include NeoOffice, LibreOffice, etc.

Another OpenOffice one. This time to do with questions on a related dab page. --Tóraí (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Previous RfCs are Talk:OpenOffice.org#RfC on the topic and Talk:OpenOffice.org#Second RfC, this time on NPOV. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Pining this one. --Tóraí (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Done This was a two part Request for Comment where there is a consensus that derivatives of OpenOffice should be included on the DAB page in the "See also" section near the bottom of the page. None of the arguments against seem to be based on so much as an essay and the arguments for are based on the MOS:DAB guideline. There was a suggestion that the page could be turned into an outline which had some support, but I do not see enough discussion about that idea to say there was a consensus to make that change. It may be worth proposing and discussing in depth in a new section below however to see if a consensus develops. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 13#RfC: How should the events in Khan Yunis on July 6-7 be described?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 13#RfC: How should the events in Khan Yunis on July 6-7 be described? (initiated 7 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Artificial intelligence#RFC on Phrase "Human-like" in First Paragraph and Talk:Artificial intelligence#Another RfC on "human-like"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Artificial intelligence#RFC on Phrase "Human-like" in First Paragraph (initiated 2 October 2014) and Talk:Artificial intelligence#Another RfC on "human-like" (initiated 22 October 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for both discussions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend against accelerating the closure of either RFC. Although there does appear to be snow consensus, the RFCs are contentious due primarily to one editor. I would suggest avoiding any possibility of a challenge to the closure. Also, because of the contentious nature of the RFCs, I would suggest an administrative close when each of the RFCs is ready for closure. (By the way, I think that I am with the majority on both RFCs. I just don't want a close to go into closure review, and would prefer to wait.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The RfC has become stale after a consensus edit of four editors was posted last month in the article (Users: Steel pillow, DavidEpstein, Ruuud, FelixRosch). FelixRosch (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
This response from FelixRosch shows why we need an authoritative closure for these RFCs, so I support the suggestion from Robert McClenon that the RFCs should run their course and that an administrative closure is appropriate in this case. The first has now run its full time, the second still has a while to go. --Mirokado (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Both RFCs have run their course and have been pulled by the bot. User:FelixRosch still doesn't accept that consensus is against including "human-like". Can an admin complete the closure so that an editor can get the phrase out of the lede? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Done on both discussions
    1. There is clear consensus against using the phrase "human-like" in the first paragraph of the lede of this article. I also see a possibility for consensus that it may be appropriate to include the definition of what AI is to the lede, which could go in the second or third paragraphs; this would need to be discussed more appropriately in a separate discussion.
    2. There is no consensus in this discussion to make the modification proposed.
— {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Since this was a non-administrative close, and the RFC was contentious, I am requesting a few admin eyes on the article for a little while. (As a non-administrative closer myself, I am not going to object to non-administrative closure, but will request administrative attention.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I will keep an eye on the article. Thanks for the heads-up. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014–15 UEFA Champions League#RfC: Tiebreaker explanations below group tables

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014–15 UEFA Champions League#RfC: Tiebreaker explanations below group tables (initiated 17 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Proposed addendum to MOS:DABSYN

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Proposed addendum to MOS:DABSYN (initiated 15 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  Done There is consensus against including "Synonyms that are not mentioned on Wikipedia should not be included on the disambiguation page", or similar language, in the Manual of Style section regarding synonyms on disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 38#RFC re: Intro

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 38#RFC re: Intro (initiated 1 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#Question 3: should anything be included about the question around Israel's democracy status

I was invited to this RfC via the comment request service, and later noticed that it was never closed despite being marked as stale by Legobot, so it's probably time now. Since I commented, I shouldn't close it myself. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 17:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There were three parts to this RFC, all of which have expired and had their templates pulled by the bot, so that all three need closure. Will an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this three-part RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Merger proposal

Looking for an experienced editor or admin to assess consensus and close merge discussion.VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is for Merge, which will have to be done by an administrator who can merge the histories. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
An admin may be needed for the actual merge, but an admin is not necessary to assess consensus and close the discussion.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I have closed the merge discussion with consensus to merge. Awaiting admin action to complete history merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  Done. Admin has determined that history merge is untenable, a regular merge of material (by anyone) is still needed, but an admin is not required. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Derek McCulloch#RfC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Derek McCulloch#RfC (initiated 29 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Ought the rumours about the person be included in this biography? Two years ago, an RfC found the inclusion of the allegations to be acceptable." Please consider Talk:Derek McCulloch#RfC: Should the article refer to the recent allegations? (initiated 4 September 2012) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Ridge#RfC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tom Ridge#RfC (initiated 29 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done There is a consensus to not include a MEK section on any of the listed pages as including such information fails to maintain a NPOV.
    Note: I'm a little disappointed that more editor interaction wasn't encouraged for this discussion. It doesn't appear that any of the seven WikiProjects interested in this topic were directly notified of the RfC and the other editors involved (EricSerge, 2over0 and Acroterion) weren't notified of the discussion either.     — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Daines#RfC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Steve Daines#RfC (initiated 19 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Is Steve Daines a "Tea Party activist" for purposes of categorization? He was endorsed by a Tea Party group, but shows no other connection to the movement.

WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergey Kryukov (2nd nomination)

Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Not done It's been relisted. Number 57 21:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Although the AfD discussion is not closed as yet since being relisted, I am marking this request as
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.
so it can be archived; the AfD can be relisted here once enough time has passed and if it is not close by then. It appears as if there is an overwhelming backlog at present. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  Done, I just closed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 15

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

One has been relisted and the other   Closed. – Fayenatic London 15:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 29

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

All are now   Closed. – Fayenatic London 13:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2015 Formula One season#German Flag for German GP

Could an uninvolved administrator evaluate consensus here, and take appropriate action? It is a tedious discussion and one user has already declared their intention not to accept a consensus. Your help would be greatly appreciated, thank you, Tvx1 (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That's one of the funniest/lamest conversations I've ever seen on a talkpage. Bravo. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not like were proud of it by any means. The fact is we are not making any progress, We're purely running in circles. Hence why I made the request here. Help would be greatly appreciated. Tvx1 (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  Done - resolved (hopefully!) at WP:DRN. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Disruption by Djcheburashka, proposed ban(s?)

Requesting closure on a 2-week old ANI that was resurrected from archives. It appears to be devolving. Would prefer an admin deal with this as it's regarding a SITEBAN. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Ricky81682. Cunard (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:∞chan#Requested move

Administrator needed to SNOW close and move ∞chan to 8chan per consensus on talk page as the existing page name "%E2%88%9Echan" is not representative of the topic and the target was tagged for deletion as a redirect at one time preventing non-admins from preforming a MOR. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1#RFC: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? (Gamergate controversy)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1#RFC: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? (Gamergate controversy) (initiated 26 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  Closed --Mdann52talk to me! 08:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Climate change denial#RfC: Must the word 'denial; occur in every citation for climate change denial?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Climate change denial#RfC: Must the word 'denial; occur in every citation for climate change denial? (initiated 21 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  Closed --Mdann52talk to me! 20:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests#Requested move

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests#Requested move (initiated 2 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done by Dekimasu. Number 57 14:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#Proposal to close the process and mark as historical

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#Proposal to close the process and mark as historical (initiated 19 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done by Mdann52. Number 57 14:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Topic ban for Spotter 1

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Topic ban for Spotter 1 (initiated 17 November 2014)? If there is a consensus for a topic ban, please add the topic ban to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 19

Could an uninvolved admin evaluate this for consensus? This is a deletion review of a previously deleted topic, Boyd Bushman, a man who last month claimed in a YouTube video that space aliens from "Pleiada" had infiltrated the U.S. government and were posing as humans with the help of advanced mind control technology (see Snopes: [[13]]). After 7 days of very intense discussion, 15 !votes have been registered endorsing the deletion (15 from accounts older than 60 days) and 7 !votes have been registered to overturn the deletion (3 from accounts newer than 60 days). BlueSalix (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  Closed by Spartaz --Mdann52talk to me! 11:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1917–1987#Requested move 18 November 2014

The discussion appears to have died, so could someone close it? Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  Closed --Mdann52talk to me! 11:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests/Archive_15&oldid=1090392442"