Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 16
 | 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of deprogrammers#RFC: The inclusion of names, the validity of references, and BLP (initiated 4 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Request for comment II and Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#RfC: UNHRC vote in the lead
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Request for comment II (initiated 6 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the following content be added to this article?"
Would an experienced editor also assess the consensus at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#RfC: UNHRC vote in the lead (initiated 6 October 2014)?
Please consider the previous RfC close at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Request for comment in your closes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- The first discussion, Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Request for comment II, was closed by FormerIP (talk · contribs). 02:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Game (Queen album)#RfC: Genres listed in this article's infobox (initiated 2 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Done There is consensus to include the genres pop and disco rock (which currently redirects to dance-rock) in the infobox, in that order of significance. There is no consensus to include pomp rock. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Garbage (album)#RfC: genre infobox dispute; Power pop & electronic rock (initiated 2 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done There is consensus for inclusion of {{Infobox album|
Genre=power pop, dance rock, and electronic rock}} in this article. There seems to be multiple independent reliable sources that support this inclusion. There was a lack of consensus to include trip-hop or to use the term techno-rock term for electronic rock in this discussion. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Game of Thrones (season 5)#RfC: Is WatchersOnTheWall.com a suitable source for this content? (initiated 26 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done There is No consensus to allow WatchersOnTheWall as a reliable source for use in this article. I'll note that the suggestion that this is the wrong forum for this discussion, which should have been taken up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead, seems very accurate to me. I would strongly suggest starting a new discussion there to see if the "experts" on reliable sources can add some more weighted arguments to the discussion in one direction or the other. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International military intervention against ISIL/Archive 3 (initiated 5 October 2014) and the RfC at Talk:International military intervention against ISIL/Archive 3#Ordering of Factions in Infobox (initiated 7 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Something strange happened here with archiving. It seems that Talk:International military intervention against ISIL/Archive 3#Ordering of Factions in Infobox was archived to Talk:International military intervention against ISIL/Archive 3 but I don't see any RfC (guessing the bot removed the tag and it's all just one discussion. Reading through and closing now...
- Done No consensus to make any changes. The scope of this RfC seems like it may have been too wide for the number of contributors. If there is any interest in re-proposing this kind of change, I suggest first opening an RfC to see if there is consensus to make a change, and if that closes as there is, then start another RfC to see what that change should be. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#RFC: Military intervention against ISIS 2014 in Iraq and Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Scope of Article
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#RFC: Military intervention against ISIS 2014 in Iraq (initiated 5 October 2014) and Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Scope of Article (initiated 11 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#RFC: Military intervention against ISIS 2014 in Iraq with No consensus to create an article containing all states that have launched a Military intervention in Iraq against ISIS in 2014.
Already done Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Scope of Article as Result the other article was deleted so this discussion is pointless now by Legacypac — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Efforts to impeach Barack Obama#RfC: Should the last 3 paragraphs in the public debate section be separated into a different section? (initiated 25 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done There is a consensus that no content related to the lawsuit should be included in this article as it belongs in its own article, which interestingly to me isn't linked to from {{Barack Obama}} nor is it linked in the "See Also" section as I would expect it to be. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#Objection to revert (initiated 1 October 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#Request for comments, where the opening poster wrote: "Does the "Health risks" section of 3 October or 4 October best represent the sources above?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done Closed per no consensus, the discussion has moved on somewhat and nobody is posting in the RFC any more. SPACKlick (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:JPY#Shouldn't the link be piped as "JP¥"? (initiated 11 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done There is a consensus to use JP¥ in place of ¥ in this template. I'll also note that the two other discussions seem to mostly support this consensus as well although they may need a more thorough closing based on their own merits. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Traditional marriage#RFC : Has advocacy language snuck onto this page to framework the readers interpretation? (initiated 6 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor required to close the question of whether to refer to the creature from the film Alien as a "xenomorph" or an "alien". RFC has now been open for more than 30 days. --McGeddon (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Done
- Closed in favour "alien" SPACKlick (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement#Request for comment on reception section (initiated 7 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#"opposes abortion", "opposes environmental regulation" (initiated 26 October 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Joni Ernst#Summary of positions, where the opening poster wrote:
I would like to request a protected edit, to make the summary of her positions consistent with the coverage it received, per Vanamonde93. Before doing so, we need to establish consensus, so I am requesting here that editors weigh in. I propose that her positions on abortion and personhood are added to the summary in the lede.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Not done - RFC is still running, and there are opinions on both sides, so that a snow closure is not in order. RFC should be allowed to continue 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- 30 days have now passed. Cunard (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects#RfC: Should Wikinews be unhidden by default? (template) (initiated 29 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is done, but needs a template editor or experienced admin (i.e. not me) to make the appropriate change to Template:Sister_project_links. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Appeal of broadly construed three month topic ban (initiated 22 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done [1] --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John Wood (Room to Read)#Request for comment (initiated 26 October 2014)? Please note that Talk:John Wood (Room to Read)#Requested move was initiated 23 November 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Done - Closed by User:Dekimasu and article renamed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Arius#Rfc: Did Constantine and Licinius legalize Christianity? (initiated 20 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Was Christianity legalized throughout the Roman Empire by Constantine or Galerius?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Done - Consensus is that the RFC does not ask what the article should state and is not a valid RFC, and that any editor who has a question about what the article should say should originate a new RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Watergate scandal/Archive 1#Add "international reactions" section? (initiated 31 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Done - Consensus was to add the section. Since one of the reactions was in the US, it is called "Reactions". Robert McClenon (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:France#RfC: Should the lead's coverage of French history be broadened? (initiated 22 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Done - Rough consensus to expand lede's coverage of French history. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Removal of the Timeline Section (initiated 6 November 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Done - There is consensus to retain the section. Not a snow closure, however. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Two envelopes problem#Request for comments (initiated 19 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "There is an ongoing discussion about whether or not we should include to the main article an excerpt from a published paper written by Tsikogiannopoulos." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Done - Consensus was not to include the excerpt from the paper. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:100-gigabit Ethernet#Wots in a name (initiated 29 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States pro-life movement#Supporters of anti-abortion violence: a fringe element in the US RTL movement: should there be a sentence about them? (initiated 15 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please evaluate consensus here, and take the appropriate action. In this particular case, please be mindful of the large number of SPAs and IPs that have commented without providing any relevant reasoning behind their comments. RGloucester — ☎ 17:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done (by one of the participants...). Number 57 23:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkish people#Christians (initiated 22 September 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Turkish people#Request for comment (initiated 12 October 2014), where the opening poster wrote: "Request for comment is on weither or not its notable to add Christianity to the infobox even though less than .001% of Turkish people are Christians." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Application of sharia law by country#RfC: question about "application of sharia" in the article? (initiated 22 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Should "application of sharia" in this article include "legal code that applies parts of and norms derived from sharia"? The context for the dispute and discussion can be found on talk page here; and therein, the terms sharia, Islamic law and religious law of Islam are synonymous.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chinese as a foreign language#RfC: inclusion of ethnic Chinese non-native speakers (initiated 26 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Increasing length of time for AfD discussions (initiated 20 November 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposing DRN for user conduct issues (initiated 10 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:No footnotes#Requests for comment (initiated 6 November 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
This proposal to deprecate {{No footnotes}}, and replace it with - a somewhat differently worded - {{No inline citations}}, needs (additional) input.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC: Comma before Jr. or Sr. (initiated 30 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Steam#Requests for comment (initiated 6 November 2014)? 82.136.210.153 (talk · contribs) wrote:
Comment Legobot removed the RfC template. What's going to happen next?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#RFC: expressing coordinates as decimal vs. DMS (initiated 7 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ukraine#RfC for including casualty statistics as exceeding casualty statistics for 9-11 (under 3000 at 9-11, just over 3000 in Ukraine) (initiated 3 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine#Request for comment (initiated 14 November 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Does this article violate WP:What Wikipedia is not? If so, which part? If not, does it violate any other rule?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Is a consensus formed? If not, can you give it a few more weeks? If closed, I will start a new RM on the title itself. --George Ho (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be consensus, and the RFC is still open. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- After noting that the RFC was still open, I expressed an opinion, and so have become involved.
- Will an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Cedar Creek#Request for comment concerning the name of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- After noting that the RFC was still open, I expressed an opinion, and so have become involved.
- Done I have closed the discussion as: There is a consensus that Battle of Cedar Creek is the PRIMARY topic. There is also a consensus that there should be a Battle of Cedar Creek (disambiguation) page. There is no consensus on what the exact hatnote on the primary topic should be but it would be common sense to make it {{Other|Battle of Cedar Creek (disambiguation)}}. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of environmental organizations#Request for comment (Initiated 3647 days ago on 28 November 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
I'm uncertain about the value/ strengths/ focus of this article. Arguably, its main strength is the listing of environmental NGOs. But, as argued above, would this best be done via Categories by country? Should this article be renamed/ refocused/ further developed as a List of environmental non-governmental organizations, by country? Should it be deleted? Thanks for your input.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:What I've Been Looking For#First female artist to debut two songs at the same time on the Hot 100 (Initiated 3714 days ago on 22 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed the discussion as There is a consensus to not exclude the text given in the diff. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Imran Khan/Archives/2015/August#How many infoboxes should be in an article (Initiated 3668 days ago on 7 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC (Initiated 3674 days ago on 1 November 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
I broached this topic at the talk page for RS/N but the primary discussion should clearly be here, as the discussion now in Archive46 makes clear.
Should the following be placed in this policy:
- Headlines of news articles are not intrinsically part of news articles, but should be treated separately as sources rather than being used for claims cited to the news article.
Please consider the previous closed RfCs Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 43#RfC - are newspaper headlines a reliable source per se? (Initiated 3816 days ago on 12 June 2014) and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 46#Add something about never using headlines as sources? (Initiated 3769 days ago on 29 July 2014) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 1 and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 2
Would an admin or admins assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 1 (Initiated 3703 days ago on 3 October 2014) and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 2 (Initiated 3703 days ago on 3 October 2014). Please note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Close Review Media Viewer RfC. An editor wrote at the bottom of the AN discussion: "I support the idea of having three a panel of 3 close this, considering how contentious this matter is." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Already done by Cenarium (diff) and Edokter (diff) respectively. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Cedar Creek#Request for comment (Initiated 3679 days ago on 27 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
We have other two topics named "Battle of Cedar Creek": Battle of Cedar Creek (Jacksonville) and Battle of Cedar Creek (1876). Recently, I created Battle of Cedar Creek (disambiguation) just in case. This "Battle of Cedar Creek" topic discusses one of battles fought in Virginia in 1864 during the American Civil War. Is this topic primary per WP:primary topic? If not, how can you disambiguate this Virginia battle?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done There is a consensus that Battle of Cedar Creek is the PRIMARY topic. There is also a consensus that there should be a Battle of Cedar Creek (disambiguation) page. There is no consensus on what the exact hatnote on the primary topic should be but it would be common sense to make it {{Other|Battle of Cedar Creek (disambiguation)}}. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RFC: Alleged theft of cigars from convenience store? (Initiated 3646 days ago on 29 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#Electronic cigarette (Initiated 3671 days ago on 4 November 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret. 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)
- Already done by Chillum on 03:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:House of Assembly of Jamaica#RfC (Initiated 3668 days ago on 7 November 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the {{Politics of Jamaica}} be added this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2015/March#PoK as title or Anything related to disputed (Initiated 3754 days ago on 13 August 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Azad Kashmir#RFC: Disambiguating PoK (Initiated 3659 days ago on 16 November 2014). Please consider the unclosed 2012 RfC Talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2012/December#Request for comment: claimed districts in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it needs to waste admin time for a formal close.. consensus is already implemented among participants and RFC was withdrawn. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think a formal close would be helpful to record the consensus since this was previously discussed in the 2012 unclosed RfC Talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2012/December#Request for comment: claimed districts. Cunard (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't as clear cut as it looks. Apparently there are other uses for "PoK" and there is already a DAB page at POK. I've commented in the discussion as such, and in doing so am too I to close it now. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think a formal close would be helpful to record the consensus since this was previously discussed in the 2012 unclosed RfC Talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2012/December#Request for comment: claimed districts. Cunard (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Apparently, the RfC wasn't about the anagram of PoK, but it was instead about the full titled version of what the anagram represents. I've closed it as such and declared that if anyone considering my comment made out of confusion as making me involved is welcome to revert and request a new closer here. Please do not archive this section for at least 72 hours. The exact closure was: The consensus is that Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir should redirect to Azad Kashmir and PoK should be a disambiguation page. Note: My comment below was made out of confusion which was cleared up in the response and since it was not what the basis of this discussion was, I do not feel it implies I was INVOLVED. If you disagree, feel free to revert and request a new closer at WP:ANRFC — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Formula 1 (Initiated 3694 days ago on 12 October 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Formal poll (Initiated 3693 days ago on 13 October 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
In progress — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)- {{Done}} I've closed the discussion with: There is consensus to use the national flag icon of an athlete in an international competition as a graphic symbol for that athlete for competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport. There is consensus that F1 is such an international competition and that use of flag icons to represent a driver's chosen nationality is acceptable to represent their participation in an event where they represented that country. There is also consensus that the flags should not be used to represent the driver for other events where they do not represent a specific country or for general use. There were some valid concerns that MOS:ICON was a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as a whole and as such not enforceable as a community wide consensus. My eyes are however bugged out after reading that discussion, so if there is something I have missed, please point it out to me and I'll revise the closure as is appropriate. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Should we allow DVD release dates in series overview tables? (Initiated 3673 days ago on 2 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Care Bears#Companies (Initiated 3688 days ago on 18 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Closed as no consensus. Sam Walton (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Since the proposal is being criticized as "proposer admitted to be a sock puppet" and during the discussion we had found a better page where it could be merged, i.e. Human rights abuses in Kashmir. I think this merge needs to be closed because many of the votes have been made in favor of merging the article into Human rights abuses in Kashmir. It would be better to start a new one. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3875 days ago on 14 April 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done There is consensus to merge this article with Human rights abuses in Kashmir and leave a redirect with appropriate templates. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The consensus has formed. --George Ho (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3666 days ago on 9 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Closed as no consensus. Sam Walton (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Old MFD with overdue closure for a month. — xaosflux Talk 17:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3675 days ago on 31 October 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done Closed as: No consensus to disband this WikiProject Taskforce (even a task force with only three or four actual members as the others were accounts created that have no edits except for this discussion and adding themselves to the wikiproject and have been reported to WP:SPI to be investigated and dealt with) and while Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects says it is generally inadvisable to create task forces without prior discussion it doesn't prohibit it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Since the proposal is being criticized as "proposer admitted to be a sock puppet" and during the discussion we had found a better page where it could be merged, i.e. Human rights abuses in Kashmir. I think this merge needs to be closed because many of the votes have been made in favor of merging the article into Human rights abuses in Kashmir. It would be better to start a new one. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3875 days ago on 14 April 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done There is consensus to merge this article with Human rights abuses in Kashmir and leave a redirect with appropriate templates. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings#RFC - Violence against men category for article 2014 Isla Vista killings (Initiated 3692 days ago on 14 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Closed with consensus against inclusion of the category. Sam Walton (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Debito Arudou#RfC: Is the "Academic Publications" subsection of "Publications" in this BLP warranted? (Initiated 3691 days ago on 15 October 2014)? Please consider in your close the related comment at Talk:Debito Arudou#Suggestion for improving this BLP (1) from the subject of the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Closed with consensus against a full list. Sam Walton (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC Pro Life Stance (Initiated 3686 days ago on 20 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) {{Done}} - No consensus because editors considered the wording of the RFC to be unclear. A new RFC with clearer wording would be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vietnam War#war crimes should be at least mentioned in the lead (Initiated 3692 days ago on 14 October 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Vietnam War#RfC: Should the lead state "War crimes were committed by both sides"? (Initiated 3684 days ago on 22 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Closed with consensus against inclusion of war crimes information in the lead. Sam Walton (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)#RfC: Article/character name and usage (Initiated 3681 days ago on 25 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Closed as no consensus due largely to lack of participation. Sam Walton (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Need closure and assessment of the consensus. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3673 days ago on 2 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
{{Done}} - Closed by User:Snow Rise. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ayurveda#Should this article be categorized as "pseudoscience"? (Initiated 3674 days ago on 1 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC) {{Done}} - Rough consensus against characterization. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey#RfC: Reinsertion of photographs (Initiated 3671 days ago on 4 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Consensus was for keeping the images. Sam Walton (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Calcium#Supplementation & Cancer (Initiated 3676 days ago on 30 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
{{Done}} - Agreement on revised wording of statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 114#Creation of the "Special talk:" namespace (Initiated 3688 days ago on 18 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Declined Insufficient participation for a site-wide change. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Proposed site ban for Blastikus (Initiated 3642 days ago on 3 December 2014)? If there is consensus for a ban, please add {{Banned user}} to User:Blastikus and link to the discussion using the |link=[[discussion]] parameter. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Declined Insufficient participation for a site-wide ban. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Clemson–South Carolina rivalry#Request for Comment (Initiated 3678 days ago on 28 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Recently some editors have expressed the opinion that the non-athletic history/background section of the article should be significantly reduced or eliminated while another editor feels that the length, detail and weight of non-athletic history/background section of the article is appropriate and proper. Please indicate whether you feel that the section should be a) kept as is or b) cut back and summarized or c) completely removed. As you can see, Third Party Opinion was already solicited for this topic.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Done - Trimming the non-athletic history splits the difference between deleting it and keeping all of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#RfC: Recent fixtures and upcoming fixtures should not be included in rugby team articles (Initiated 3692 days ago on 14 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- {{Done}} There is consensus for the removal of lists of recent and upcoming fixtures from any articles that still include them as they are non-encyclopedic. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 05:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Poll discussion - Should we also require a secondary RS as part of listing criteria (Initiated 3679 days ago on 27 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:S. Truett Cathy#RfC: "anti-gay", again (Initiated 3677 days ago on 29 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Done - No consensus, but the questioned wording has been removed, so issue is resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Persib Bandung#RfC: Should it be shorter? (Initiated 3691 days ago on 15 October 2014) and Talk:Persib Bandung#Consensus (Initiated 3665 days ago on 10 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done - There is consensus that this article is too long and needs to be trimmed.
- Done - There is a consensus that the affiliated clubs section will be removed from the article. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Tq#Removing the italics option (Initiated 3692 days ago on 14 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should we remove the italicize-quotation option from this and any similar [i.e., quotation-formatting] templates?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done - There is no consensus to remove italics as an option for this or any other quotation-formatting templates for use outside of article space. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Miniseries naming convention (Initiated 3691 days ago on 15 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
This discussion started in January 2013, but was soon after archived, and the discussion never closed. The purpose of this discussion is to determine if Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Episodic television should be rewritten to state that "(TV miniseries)" or "(miniseries)" should be the standard for disambiguators in TV miniseries articles that require disambiguation in their titles.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done - There is consensus that the disambiguator for a TV miniseries should be (miniseries) except in rare occurrences when more detail is required. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
SpaceX — questions over founder/co-founder status
There is a proposal and discussion here—Talk:SpaceX#Tom Mueller - other founder (Initiated 3759 days ago on 8 August 2014) and subsection Talk:SpaceX#Proposal —that really ought to be closed by an outside uninvolved closer. Would appreciate the overview. N2e (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done There is consensus that Tom Mueller should not be listed as a founder in this article until a time when adequate sources can be found. There is no consensus that all sources need to be approved on the talk page before they can be added to the article. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Proposal: remove parenthetical information from lead (RfC) (Initiated 3686 days ago on 20 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done I've closed the discussion. There wasn't enough participation for me to even guess at the larger consensus, but the participants agreed that something needed to be done, so I've asked them to try to get a larger discussion going. - Dank (push to talk) 05:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Talk:List of One Piece characters#RFC: Straw Hat Pirates as Main characters or Protagonists? and Talk:List of One Piece characters#Character additions
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of One Piece characters#RFC: Straw Hat Pirates as Main characters or Protagonists? (Initiated 3690 days ago on 16 October 2014) and Talk:List of One Piece characters#Character additions (Initiated 3690 days ago on 16 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done No consensus has been reached.
- Done There is a consensus to include Sabo and there is no consensus to Bartolomeo. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
"Today's Featured Article" coordinators
Would an admin or experienced editor please read Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator (Initiated 3658 days ago on 17 November 2014) and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#RfC: Team of coordinators, or consensus-building (Initiated 3650 days ago on 25 November 2014) and decide (a) whether it is appropriate to close any or all of the discussions there and (b) if so what the consensus is. (FYI, I gave a week's notice of my intention to ask for this closure at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Wrapping this up and left talk-page messages for Montanabw (link) and Pigsonthewing (link); the former has replied at her talk page and on the WT:TFA talk page, the latter has not). Many thanks. BencherliteTalk 15:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- The longer this goes on, the less time people will have to look over TFA decisions made for early January, so a prompt closure - or alternatively a decision that it cannot be closed at this time, if that is the case - would be appreciated. BencherliteTalk
- Done the first discussion where there was clear consensus for the nominated candidates. Deciding what to do with the second now... Sam Walton (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done Second RfC closed. Sam Walton (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul LePage#RFC: Paul LePage and the Sovereign Citizen's Movement (Initiated 3685 days ago on 21 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just noted on WP:WikiProject Maine's talk page. As such, suggest holding off on closing until project members have a chance to respond. I'm unable to close this discussion myself as I am a resident of the state of Maine (and a member of the wikiproject for the state) that strongly opposes Governor LePage (despite the fact that I would have to close it as a consensus to not include the controversial content), and I don't want this residency to be usable as an argument to overturn the closure. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge discussion (Initiated 3683 days ago on 23 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Question: Should Indo-Canadians in British Columbia and Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver be separate or should the latter be merged into the former?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Done by User:S Marshall
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 115#Proposal for countering systematic bias (Initiated 3648 days ago on 27 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- {{done}} --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Unarchived the discussion hasn't been closed yet. Based on ThaddeusB's contributions, it looks like he meant to mark Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#Canvassing Country / Nation level Wikiprojects as closed but accidentally marked this one as closed. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Unless I am mistaken, the two conversations are the same thing. The one I closed is is transcluded into VP. The close doesn't come through the transclusion, but it is closed. I can {{atop}} to VP discussion too if you really want. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am mistaken. I did not notice that the discussions were identical and one was transcluded to the other. Sorry for the mistake. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Unless I am mistaken, the two conversations are the same thing. The one I closed is is transcluded into VP. The close doesn't come through the transclusion, but it is closed. I can {{atop}} to VP discussion too if you really want. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Unarchived the discussion hasn't been closed yet. Based on ThaddeusB's contributions, it looks like he meant to mark Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#Canvassing Country / Nation level Wikiprojects as closed but accidentally marked this one as closed. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Should the +reviewer bit be removed from inactive reviewers?
An experienced closer is needed to close Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#Should the +reviewer bit be removed from inactive reviewers? (Initiated 3659 days ago on 16 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done by User:Samwalton9
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 17#Ordering of sections (Initiated 3680 days ago on 26 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests/Archive 3#RfC: Proposal to move the content of Chronology section to Wikinews (Initiated 3677 days ago on 29 October 2014)? The discussion was removed here with the edit summary "moving RfC back to current Talk", but it was not moved back. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion has been archived, so deciding on a consensus won't be easy. --George Ho (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 18#RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves (Initiated 3677 days ago on 29 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion appears to have run its course. Need an unonvolved party to assess and close it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I took a look at this, but given that votes are more-or-less 50/50 and we're in the I/P topic area, I don't think it can be safely closed until the 30 days are up. Formerip (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3657 days ago on 18 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm writing in support of the polite resolution of the discussion occurring on this topic when consensus closes in three days. Thank you for you help. Rustandbone (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 14#Editor Poll (Initiated 3664 days ago on 11 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
As the editor who started the poll, I have to ask why it needs to be closed? The parameters of the poll say that it cant be used to come to any conclusions or changes to the article. This looks like a waste of time that could be better spent closing something that needs closing. AlbinoFerret 17:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse the above view. The poll did not ask for a ruling on consensus and any conclusions drawn would be procedurally invalid based on the phrasing of the pole. Bellerophon talk to me 01:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not done per comments above. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Punjabi language#RfC: Writing Systems of Punjabi language (Initiated 3672 days ago on 3 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done by Snow Rise. Number 57 18:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vagina#RfC: Should both three and four layers be mentioned as composing the vaginal walls? (Initiated 3671 days ago on 4 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done by S Marshall. Number 57 18:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her (Initiated 3665 days ago on 10 November 2014) after there has been sufficient discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Already done - Closed by User:SarekOfVulcan 20:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC) as original closure was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#RFC: Should WikiProject article categories be renamed to WikiProject X articles by quality, A-Class WikiProject X articles, etc (Initiated 3675 days ago on 31 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mark Begich#RFC for content attributed to votesmart.org (Initiated 3676 days ago on 30 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done - No consensus, and so no change to article. Another RFC with more effort to attract participation would be an option. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#RfC: Voting crats cannot close (Initiated 3652 days ago on 23 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done by S Marshall. Number 57 18:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion has been open for 2-1/2 weeks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3645 days ago on 30 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Already done by ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
One discussion may have reached a consensus. --George Ho (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3636 days ago on 9 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- {{done}} --BDD (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of academic ranks#Request for comment: Splitting the academic rank topics (Initiated 3672 days ago on 3 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Done - There is agreement that the work being done by one editor in splitting the rank topics is satisfactory. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 50#Main Page ITN picture location (Initiated 3687 days ago on 19 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this really needed a close, but I've Done it anyway. Formerip (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 1#Hudson Street Hooligans? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3644 days ago on 1 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done by Salvidrim!. Cunard (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 6#Moxie Raia? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3639 days ago on 6 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done by Salvidrim!. Cunard (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Administrative Standards Commission#RfC: Should Requests for Adminship be supplemented or replaced by an elected committee? (Initiated 3676 days ago on 30 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Given that the discussion seems to have largely moved on on that page and there's a fresh RfC started to continue the discussion, I'm not sure this needs an official close. Sam Walton (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with your assessment. I withdraw this RfC closure request. Cunard (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette#Vapor, Mist, & Aerosol RFC (Initiated 3660 days ago on 15 November 2014)? SPACKlick (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Would a experienced uninvolved editor please close this. discussion and responses stopped about a week ago. The issue is very contentious on the page and only one part of a multi question RFC appears to have a clear answer though the response to others may help. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 14:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
(Initiated 3657 days ago on 18 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- That needs to be corrected, I started the RFC, on the 15th of November diff AlbinoFerret 14:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
{{done}} by S Marshall SPACKlick (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Axis powers - Should this article have a "former country" type infobox
Request an admin's assistance to assess the RfC consensus at Talk:Axis powers regarding; Should this article have a "former country" type infobox.
- (Initiated 3653 days ago on 22 November 2014) --E-960 (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Sam Walton (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3635 days ago on 10 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Randykitty. Number 57 19:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3634 days ago on 11 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Randykitty. Number 57 19:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 7#Involuntary celibacy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3638 days ago on 7 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Sandstein. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Chandra Levy#Notability of Chandra Levy and events involving her (Initiated 3638 days ago on 7 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
{{Done}} - Consensus against moving or renaming. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bath School disaster#RfC: Article title change (Initiated 3664 days ago on 11 November 2014)? An editor wrote: "It would be preferable to allow a third, non-involved party to close down the discussion." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
{{Done}} - Article title will be left unchanged. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Light bulb (disambiguation)#RFC (Initiated 3666 days ago on 9 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC) {{Done}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Metacompiler#RFC (Initiated 3657 days ago on 18 November 2014)? If no consensus can be reached from the lengthy RfC, please consider advising the participants on how to frame a better RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
{{Done}} - Closed as no consensus. The original RFC did not ask a question about the article content. It did not even ask for comments about article content. Instead, it started off with a statement, and then the editors began repeating themselves. Either a new RFC is needed with a question about article content, or the editors can go to the dispute resolution noticeboard, where a volunteer moderator can try to help the editors decide what the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hi-5 (Australian band)#RfC: Reorganize band members section (Initiated 3684 days ago on 22 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the Band members section be simplified to just show current and former members, with members' reasons for leaving and successions to be expanded upon in the band's History section?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
These discussion must be closed, but I want someone who knows how to use {{subst:MRV top}} and {{subst:MRV bottom}}. --George Ho (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Now that two discussions are closed, someone should close the only one remaining. --George Ho (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3665 days ago on 10 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Black Kite. Number 57 23:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi#Mahatma? (Initiated 3652 days ago on 23 November 2014)? After closing the discussion, please update the {{Old moves}} template at the top of the talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette#Proposed removal of claim (Initiated 3630 days ago on 15 December 2014)? The discussion is not an RfC but involves an {{editprotected}} request. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs). Sunrise (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:2012 Benghazi attack#Current title (Initiated 3661 days ago on 14 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:St. Francis Dam#Grunsky NPOV issue (Initiated 3664 days ago on 11 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Watergate scandal/Archive 1#Adding media portrayal and public reactions (Initiated 3650 days ago on 25 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:PATH (Toronto)#Current title (Initiated 3664 days ago on 11 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
{{Done}} - No clear question; no clear answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Climate engineering#Editing disagreement over soot particles (Initiated 3656 days ago on 19 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
{{Done}} - See talk page. There was too much going around and around. Anyone who is dissatisfied with the close, rather than reopening an RFC, is advised to request volunteer moderator assistance at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I nominated this move 15 days ago, and today there is not much talking happening. So I am here because I think something should be clear by now. I note that, with an article title being List of lists of lists, it would be good if the closing admin is familiar with content/noncontent abstraction. -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3636 days ago on 9 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Prostitution in South Korea#Reverted removal of the Japanese sex tourists in South Korea section (Initiated 3676 days ago on 30 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
{{Done}} - No consensus. Suggestions made as to a better RFC or WP:DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cambodian genocide denial#RfC: Is the section on Chomsky neutral? (Initiated 3664 days ago on 11 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 23#RFC: Lists of countries and territories, List of sovereign states, List of active rebel groups and ISIL (Initiated 3650 days ago on 25 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States#RFC on Scope of United States (Initiated 3667 days ago on 8 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 23#Tom Nolan (Initiated 3627 days ago on 18 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I think discussion has peaked. --George Ho (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3709 days ago on 27 September 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not done I fail to see why a close is needed here - there is no proposal, and no real conclusion reached by the discussion. Of course, I could be missing something here. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
A previously closed and then reopened request to merge/redirect this article somewhere. Requires a thoughtful and ironskinned admin. Note involvement of "GamerGate" and Jimbo. Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- A non-administrator attempted to close this discussion, but it has been reverted. Please note that no non-administrator should be closing this discussion as dictated by the controversial nature of it, and because of previous accusations of procedural failure. It would be nice if some administrator would pop in and make a determination. RGloucester — ☎ 17:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3637 days ago on 8 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not exactly. Whoever closes this should read the old discussion, which opened in October. That discussion was reopened by Mr Wales, 11 days ago as said by Mr 13. RGloucester — ☎ 17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Edit: It seems someone has hidden the old discussion in an archive. I'll provide the link here. RGloucester — ☎ 17:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3677 days ago on 29 October 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- It was actually on October 29, 2014, here. Dave Dial (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not exactly. Whoever closes this should read the old discussion, which opened in October. That discussion was reopened by Mr Wales, 11 days ago as said by Mr 13. RGloucester — ☎ 17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
If this close has been reverted by a single editor purely and solely on the basis that the close was not an admin, the close should be re-instated. The closer was not a rookie, and admins do not receive any special training in closing discussions and it is never permissible to just revert a close without discussion. Per policy here. the admin status of the closer is not a valid complaint. If it's a bad close, complain at WP:AN.
It's not clear to me whether this was a formal RfC, but if so then the close was premature, because an RfC runs from when it was opened, not from when some other archived discussion was opened. In that case, though, you need to wait for the 30 days to end. Formerip (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is a valid complaint, given that the discussion was explicitly reopened by Mr Wales because he objected to non-administrator closure. It is quite clear that you are not familiar with the peculiar nature of this particular discussion, and the Wales intrigue involved. RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- No it isn't valid. It wouldn't matter if the Pope had got involved. It's settled policy that you cannot summarily overturn a good-faith close of an RfC/talkpage discussion, particularly if your only reason is that a non-admin did it. If you feel there is something wrong with the close, take the matter to AN. That's what you're supposed to do. Formerip (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is valid, given the peculiar nature of this case. In any other case, I'd agree with you. In this case, where my non-administrator closure was overturned by Mr Wales for this express reason, we cannot follow through on the same procedural error. RGloucester — ☎ 01:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't followed the whole thing, but if Jimbo previously summarily reverted a good-faith close, that was an error on his part. Rather than duplicate it, I would suggest discussion the whole thing, including the previous revert at AN. Formerip (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is valid, given the peculiar nature of this case. In any other case, I'd agree with you. In this case, where my non-administrator closure was overturned by Mr Wales for this express reason, we cannot follow through on the same procedural error. RGloucester — ☎ 01:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- No it isn't valid. It wouldn't matter if the Pope had got involved. It's settled policy that you cannot summarily overturn a good-faith close of an RfC/talkpage discussion, particularly if your only reason is that a non-admin did it. If you feel there is something wrong with the close, take the matter to AN. That's what you're supposed to do. Formerip (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is a valid complaint, given that the discussion was explicitly reopened by Mr Wales because he objected to non-administrator closure. It is quite clear that you are not familiar with the peculiar nature of this particular discussion, and the Wales intrigue involved. RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with FormerIP that it is established policy and practice that non-admin RfC/talkpage discussions cannot be summarily reverted. I have taken this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Restoring reverted close of Talk:Cultural Marxism#Re-proposal (permanent link). Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's BS. There is no way, after Jimbo reverted the previous close, that a non-admin should close that Merge proposal. Especially with all of the off-site canvassing. There is an admin there now pretending he is neutral who has been heavily involved in the Gamergate controversy. A non-involved admin should read through both the previous Merge proposal and the current one. And the sources. Carefully. Especially when you have [[WP:FRINGE|fringe groups] like Stormfront sending in SPAs, along with Gamergate people on 4chan and /pol/ NN from 8chan. The whole 'issue' should have been left alone in the first place. Dave Dial (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I want to withdraw my deletion request. Bosstopher (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done by User:Malcolmxl5. Sunrise (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
New sanctions have been placed,(see Talk:Ayurveda#Update) further discussion seems to be unnecessary. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Ayurveda. Cunard (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3663 days ago on 12 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Already done based on my read of Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_7#Reviewing_the_restrictions, there is nothing additional to resolve in the ANI thread as the 0RR restriction has been removed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 61#RfC (Initiated 3682 days ago on 24 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Which of the following formats for presenting late-night anime air times should be followed?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- The consensus for "Official air times with footnote" seems clear, but the discussion has been archived. Does the rule against editing the content of an archive supersede the request that the RfC be officially assessed and closed? --GRuban (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- You can close discussions that have been archived, there is no rule or policy against it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Songs for the Deaf#Songs for the Deaf is what musical genres? RFC (Initiated 3670 days ago on 5 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Large backlog at RfD
(Initiated 3767 days ago on 31 July 2014) - 2014 September 13#国庆节{{WP:ANRFC/retarget|type=RfD|国庆日}}(Initiated 3766 days ago on 1 August 2014) - 2014 September 21#Easter Island Syndrome{{WP:ANRFC/no consensus|type=RfD}}(Initiated 3758 days ago on 9 August 2014) - 2014 September 21#Preventive medicine in islam{{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Preventive medicine in islam|type=RfD|deleted=yes}}(Initiated 3747 days ago on 20 August 2014) - 2014 October 14#Ronald Reagan Election Eve Speech "A Vision For America"{{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Ronald Reagan Election Eve Speech "A Vision For America"|type=RfD|nac=closure|deleted=yes}}(Initiated 3742 days ago on 25 August 2014) - 2014 October 4#XHICG-TV{{WP:ANRFC/no consensus|type=RfD}}(Initiated 3739 days ago on 28 August 2014) - 2014 September 24#Vladimir Putin's{{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Vladimir Putin's|type=RfD|deleted=yes}}(Initiated 3734 days ago on 2 September 2014) - 2014 October 8#Kana:wa{{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Kana:wa|nac=closure|type=RfD|deleted=yes}}(Initiated 3733 days ago on 3 September 2014) - 2014 October 16#Li HolokausteRfD closed with consensuses for deleting 2 and keeping 2 but no consensus on the last.(Initiated 3730 days ago on 6 September 2014) - 2014 October 16#TáiwanClosed as keep(Initiated 3724 days ago on 12 September 2014) - 2014 October 31#Sockpuppet investigations{{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Sockpuppet investigations|type=RfD|deleted=yes}}(Initiated 3719 days ago on 17 September 2014) - 2014 October 21#Mangga- {{WP:ANRFC/retarget|Manga (disambiguation)}} — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3714 days ago on 22 September 2014) - 2014 September 22#Next Fijian general election{{WP:ANRFC/retarget|List of next general elections#Oceania}}(Initiated 3714 days ago on 22 September 2014) - 2014 September 22#Juvenile Law in Illinois{{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Juvenile Law in Illinois|type=RfD|deleted=yes}}(Initiated 3696 days ago on 10 October 2014) - 2014 October 10#Wikipedia-Supported Software{{WP:ANRFC/retarget|Wikipedia#Software operations and support|nac=no}}(Initiated 3696 days ago on 10 October 2014) - 2014 October 10#ὈλιγαρχίαClosed as keep(Initiated 3692 days ago on 14 October 2014) - 2014 December 16#民主進歩党- {{WP:ANRFC/no consensus|type=RfD|nac=no}} I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3685 days ago on 21 October 2014) - 2014 October 21#Global JihadRFD non-admin closure was to disambiguate(Initiated 3683 days ago on 23 October 2014) - 2014 October 23#Ἀφορισμός{{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Ἀφορισμός|type=RfD|nac=closure|deleted=yes}}(Initiated 3678 days ago on 28 October 2014) - 2014 December 18#Example of low wage job- {{WP:ANRFC/delete|type=RfD|page=Example of low wage job|nac=closure|deleted=yes}} — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3672 days ago on 3 November 2014) - 2014 November 3#Maangamizi makuu dhidi ya Wayahudi wa Ulaya{{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Maangamizi makuu dhidi ya Wayahudi wa Ulaya|type=RfD|nac=closure|deleted=yes}}(Initiated 3648 days ago on 27 November 2014) - 2014 December 16#Job system- {{WP:ANRFC/retarget|type=Rfd|Character class|nac=no}} I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3646 days ago on 29 November 2014) - 2014 December 24#World's Largest Apple- {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=World's Largest Apple|nac=no|deleted=yes}} I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3642 days ago on 3 December 2014) - 2014 December 3#Truth & Treason{{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Truth & Treason|type=RfD|nac=closure|deleted=yes}}(Initiated 3641 days ago on 4 December 2014) - 2014 December 4#Blitz (Final Fantasy VI){{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Blitz (Final Fantasy VI)|type=RfD|nac=closure|deleted=yes}}
WP:RFD has a large backlog, and any admin or qualified non-admin assistance in closing there would be appreciated. Please take a look at any eligible discussions; the ones I'm listing here are ones where I think consensus is clear but won't close myself because I've participated in them. Feel free to strike through or add a check mark next to each as they're done. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- BDD, I don't mind working through these, if the consensus is for delete, shall I ping you to carry out the consensus once I close the discussion as a (non-admin closure) or should I get someone else? Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry I hadn't actually answered your question here. I don't quite feel comfortable being the one to carry out the actual deletion. Sometimes with a backlog, I'll close really obvious delete results when I'm a participant, but otherwise, I'd rather leave it to someone else once I've chimed in. I could go on at length about involved closes, but let's save that for another time. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Opened on 9 December (14 days ago). No input since 17 December (6 days ago). Edit-warring continues on the infobox. Scolaire (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3636 days ago on 9 December 2014) I'd say this was invalidly withdrawn by original poster due to the fact that there had been other contributors on both sides of the discussion. I've reopened the discussion as such. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a consensus. --George Ho (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3635 days ago on 10 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a consensus. --George Ho (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3648 days ago on 27 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC close review Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq (Initiated 3667 days ago on 8 November 2014) after there has been sufficient discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- It looks like this was closed on 6 December and is now archived. Formerip (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 12#Bahomet (Initiated 3698 days ago on 8 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done – EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#Jacquees (Initiated 3645 days ago on 30 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#声母 (Initiated 3690 days ago on 16 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#Serene Branson (Initiated 3642 days ago on 3 December 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin assess this, please? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3624 days ago on 21 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done – EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
This discussion started almost 2 months ago. Three editors besides the original nominator (me) agreed to merge/delete per the nom, while one editor opposed everything and another editor opposed some of what was nominated. Nobody has contributed to the discussion in over 10 days, so with 4 out of 6 editors agreeing to merge/delete per the nom, I think that is safe to say that consensus has been establish. JDDJS (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3680 days ago on 26 October 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done – Closed by User:Good Olfactory on 22 December. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I would close these, but I am closing too many of them. However, I can provide procedural help for anyone who is unfamiliar with how to close discussions and would like to help with closing. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3648 days ago on 27 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 18#RfC on summarizing the most prominent statements in existing MEDRSs' conclusions (Initiated 3668 days ago on 7 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 15#디지털 포트리스 (Initiated 3697 days ago on 9 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Closed by Randykitty. Sam Walton (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#RfC: Require all bots to use Assert (Initiated 3648 days ago on 27 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Done - Consensus was that new bots should be required to use Assert. There was no consensus that existing bots be retro-fitted, but there was rough consensus that bots that have edited while logged out should be retro-fitted with Assert. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, there was an RFC open for a while here, but it was never closed with an assessment of consensus. Editor Hits hits resorted to sockpuppetry to promote his perspective, which muddled the discussion, and he has returned with an insistence that the RfC continue. If anybody has a moment to figure out what the consensus was, it would be appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3653 days ago on 22 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Done - After ignoring the posts by the sock-puppets, there is no consensus, so that the article can be left as is, or another RFC can be publicized. If the latter approach is taken, vigilance is needed to protect against further sock-puppetry. By the way, the default period for an RFC really still is 30 days, and claims that an RFC hasn't been completed after more than 30 days really do put the burden of proof on an editor who wants the RFC to run longer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Dental amalgam controversy#Revisions of 11/2 (Initiated 3664 days ago on 11 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Done - Not a validly formed RFC because it is a very non-neutral complaint about a particular editor. Maybe a volunteer moderator at the dispute resolution noticeboard can facilitate discussion of content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Phineas and Ferb (season 4)#RfC - Pairing of episodes (Initiated 3652 days ago on 23 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Done - After ignoring comments by sock-puppets, there is no consensus. No change to the article is needed. A new RFC can be published. If so, admin attention for possible sock-puppetry would be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
This RfC had mixed response and moved toward a proposal that attempted to address the concerns raised by the editors commenting on the RfC. The person posting the RfC elected to close it per policy for ending RfC's and explained why he did so. Another editor chose to revert his decision to end the RfC insisting this can only be done by an uninvolved editor. There does not appear to be any precedent or policy supporting reversion of the original poster's decision to end an RfC. Besides, no new comments were coming in. The reverting editor argues that a new RfC on new material cannot be entertained until the old RfC is closed by an administrator, and appears to be reverting the ending of the RfC in order to delay further discussion and changes. Please close it ASAP so we can move forward with the article. Thanks. —GodBlessYou2 (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, User:GodBlessYou2, that's quite misleading: you appear to be wikilawyering to get your preferred content into the article against consensus. But an uninvolved admin closing it would be fine, as you say. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC).
Talk:Inter-civil war violence in Libya#Rewrite lede? and Talk:Inter-civil war violence in Libya#Current title
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Inter-civil war violence in Libya#Rewrite lede? (Initiated 3662 days ago on 13 November 2014) and Talk:Inter-civil war violence in Libya#Current title (Initiated 3661 days ago on 14 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Cunard: This also required evaluation of Talk:Factional violence in Libya (2011-2014)#Requested move, FYI. That said, I almost missed it myself! I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Chronological summaries of the Olympics#Request for Comment: Where do Chronological Summaries fit in Wikipedia (Initiated 3671 days ago on 4 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Arbcom's position on expletives (Initiated 3642 days ago on 3 December 2014)? The discussion is inactive; there has been one comment in the past week. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Tadsch Mahal (Initiated 3688 days ago on 18 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Been open for nearly a month. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3640 days ago on 5 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Several RfDs
A few more RfDs that essentially just can't be closed because I've participated in them. If any admin wants to be a regular at RfD, I'd be happy to mentor him or her; your work would be helpful and appreciated. Each of these has been relisted before, has a fairly obvious outcome, or both. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3620 days ago on 25 December 2014) - 2015 January 1#Ricky Byrd- {{WP:ANRFC/retarget|Joan Jett|nac=closure}} (closed by Kelapstick)(Initiated 3615 days ago on 30 December 2014) - 2014 December 30#His poltical opponents- {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=His poltical opponents|deleted=yes|nac=closure}}(Initiated 3615 days ago on 30 December 2014) - 2014 December 30#Hypnobama- {{WP:ANRFC/delete|page=Hypnobama|deleted=yes|nac=closure}}(Initiated 3614 days ago on 31 December 2014) - 2014 December 31#Dialect of Transylvania- {{WP:ANRFC/retarget|Transylvania|nac=no}}(Initiated 3614 days ago on 31 December 2014) - 2014 December 31#List of oldest people- {{WP:ANRFC/retarget|List of the verified oldest people|nac=no}}
- @BDD: I listed the ones above with red dates on this page a while ago. This may be more efficient than how I listed them, so I'll let it be your call on how to handle the duplicate listings. Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks—I hadn't noticed. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} all of them. Number 57 16:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3622 days ago on 23 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion should be closed. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- RFC ended. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Bladesmulti (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Malcolmxl5. Number 57 13:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Restrict title blacklist override and no rate limit to account creation for account creator (Initiated 3648 days ago on 27 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Armbrust [2] Bellerophon talk to me 00:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
An experienced editor is needed to assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#Proposal to elevate Wikipedia:Userfication to guideline status. (Initiated 3637 days ago on 8 December 2014). I'd do it myself but am involved. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Proposed addition of pronunciations to infobox person (Initiated 3659 days ago on 16 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by S Marshall. Sam Walton (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Please close this; I doubt the group would accept a non-admin close, although consensus is obvious. (Initiated 3648 days ago on 27 November 2014) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
For some bizarre reason, this AfD has been open since it was relisted on the 28th December, the last !votes were on that day, and even though consensus is obvious, it hasn't been relisted again or closed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure why it wasn't listed, but {{Done}} Sam Walton (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1.2C500 bytes a day for Robert Walker. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3610 days ago on 4 January 2015) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Already done by Wehwalt — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- No oppose for the block. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3607 days ago on 7 January 2015) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Banned words list? (Initiated 3659 days ago on 16 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't look like anything which "needs" closing there. the obvious results of the survey appear obvious. I think this might be a good example of a benchmark for the "not every discussion needs closing" rule of thumb, we all talked about previously. - jc37 07:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Already done Does not require a formal close. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: enable "Syntax highlighter" gadget by default for all editors (Initiated 3640 days ago on 5 December 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, WP:SNOW is applicable. So much so that I am dis-inclined to write a formal closure for this one, especially as the conversation is now consigned to the VP archives. Bellerophon talk to me 00:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, no formal closure necessary, proposal was obviously opposed and has now been archived. Sam Walton (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Already done Does not require a formal close. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, no formal closure necessary, proposal was obviously opposed and has now been archived. Sam Walton (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Requesting closure of a move discussion at Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia/Archive 1/Archives/ 1#Requested move 6 January 2015. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3608 days ago on 6 January 2015) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} --BDD (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3609 days ago on 5 January 2015) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Stifle. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Ryulong accuses me of threatening him, WP:CONDUCT issues (Initiated 3657 days ago on 18 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Marking this Closed as it was overtaken by the Gamergate arbitration; case was accepted 27 November 2014. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Ran for almost 2 days, none have opposed it, except the users in question. Also consider closing with the original section, WP:ANI#WP:BLUD_on_Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3622 days ago on 23 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Closed 05:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC) by Llywrch. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- No specific reason for our ban, all users have dispersed, and the primary supporters are all on the opposite side of RFC discussion. Either way all users have dispersed and none of the Users involved(support and oppose) have commented on Talk:Battle of Chawinda for days (the source of all the discontent). I donnot even know why and how OccultZone unarchived the thread, as he is directly involved in the article and not an Admin. Either way I also support RFC closure and since both sides are heavily entrenched request assistance on closure of RFC on Article TalkPage.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Your ridiculous wikilawyering, horrible English and other competence issues are the reasons. You don't even know the difference between archive and closure. Users who have supported your topic ban are not required to comment on the article page, and they don't have to talk about you all the time. VandVictory (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 116#Alternative proposal: Use ASC for de-adminship only (Initiated 3648 days ago on 27 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Another "obvious result appears obvious" - and it's archived : ) - jc37 07:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Closed - clearly no consensus; no need. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board (Initiated 3656 days ago on 19 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Stifle as a failed proposal. Sam Walton (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Already done per above. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
An experienced closer is needed to officially close Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#Talk page size (Initiated 3633 days ago on 12 December 2014) which was a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz archival (Initiated 3634 days ago on 11 December 2014) which was but has been archived due to a lack of discussion. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- There was no concrete proposal and editors consistently seemed confused as to what was being proposed. Frankly, nothing needs to be closed here. Just let it sit in the archive as no action taken. If there is a more specific and clear proposal here, just start a new discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- In order to deal with the nearly 2,000 talk pages that are in excess of 175K and causing the exact same issue as the HW event, without needing to have an administrator deal with the situation every time, a clear close to that proposal that assesess whether or not a set of guidelines needs to be designed to deal with these problem pages needs to happen. The discussion at User talk:Ronhjones#Please explain in response to this chain of events may also be relevant. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban of Martin Hogbin (Initiated 3622 days ago on 23 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Closed 22:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC) by Chillum already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3629 days ago on 16 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Now Closed Bellerophon talk to me 11:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Now
relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3629 days ago on 16 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Now Closed Bellerophon talk to me 11:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Now
Please could an uninvolved admin please review this RfC (including the discussion on the project's page), decide if consensus has been reached and help close this discussion. Thanks SurreyJohn (Talk) 11:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3648 days ago on 27 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Request for closure uninvolved editor/ admin. here. Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)) (Initiated 3629 days ago on 16 December 2014)
- Done. In case it matters, this request duplicates another one relating to the same RfC above. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
No obvious consensus by count, an evaluation of rationales is needed. There are also questions of clarity of the wording which was changed part way through. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3629 days ago on 16 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Formerip (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I need this section closed with a rationale. However, please read the article talk page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Arab Winter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)—including its talk page—and my discussion with one editor before providing a rationale. --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3663 days ago on 12 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Virginia State Route 638 (Initiated 3688 days ago on 18 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please disposition Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 16 & Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 17, which have both been open for over 30 days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- 16'th is {{done}} — xaosflux Talk 21:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Succession box#RfC (Initiated 3649 days ago on 26 November 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Parallel to Template:Infobox Officeholder should this be added "but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders." See also an earlier RfC Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting
Please consider Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting in your close.Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Request for Comment: paid fellowships as an academic notability criterion (Initiated 3656 days ago on 19 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The consensus must have reached. --George Ho (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3626 days ago on 19 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Obsidi (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Would an uninvolved editor consider closing this, please? The reason the thread was started at all was for an issue not severe enough for admin assistance (IMO), but at any rate, the issue was clearly resolved but now the two "main" editors are sort of arguing with each other off-topic. I'd close it myself but I have had dealings with the OP in the past. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#iBan suggested (Initiated 3657 days ago on 18 November 2014)? Relevant discussions: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#User:Ryulong, cannot be stopped breaking rules and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#RTG. If there is a consensus for an interaction ban, please add the interaction ban to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- RTG ceased editing on 19 November 2014 so this is somewhat moot, but I doubt there is any dispute over the consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done since he could come back at any time. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
NAC Deletes
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC (nationality) (Initiated 3637 days ago on 8 December 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by S Marshall (Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)/Archive_117#RfC (nationality)) on 19 January 2015. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what? (Initiated 3647 days ago on 28 November 2014)? See the subsection Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by S. Marshall on 20 January 2015. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This should be closed. --George Ho (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3634 days ago on 11 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Request for closure uninvolved editor/ admin. (Initiated 3604 days ago on 10 January 2015).
- Two proposed topic bans of one user. First (15/0/1). Second (10/2/4). B E C K Y S A Y L E S 10:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Closed by Mike V. on 19 January. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014 (Initiated 3691 days ago on 15 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the community adopt the changes to the makeup and procedures of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee proposed below?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've read through parts of this proposal a few times, and think that since there are many different sections on different questions, each section should be closed separately. I could really use some help on this, anyone? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think this one is best left to one or more uninvolved admins. I think you'd be making a rod for own back trying to close this one. Bellerophon talk to me 01:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Bellerophon, I think it needs to be closed by more than one editor regardless of whether or not they are admins. I do agree there should be at least one admin in the group however, which is why I'm waiting for help before I really start digging in. You interested in helping with it? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think this one is best left to one or more uninvolved admins. I think you'd be making a rod for own back trying to close this one. Bellerophon talk to me 01:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- This proposal would best be closed by more than one editor to make sure the closing is accurate and properly worded. I'm thinking there should be 3-5 closers involved in the close. If you are interested on helping with this close, please add your signature to the list below:
- — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Arfæst! 14:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You guys can go ahead with this if you think it really needs it, but my feeling on it (as noted on the talk page [3] was that we had arrived at a consensus to change BASC, but not on exactly what those changes would be. I had planned to revisit this and do a second phase after I'm done with the GamerGate arbitration case. I would personally be more interested in recruiting a team to help manage and close that process.
While I haven't even drafted anything yet, I am thinking it will probably be the sort of RFC where there are several different new structures proposed and we try to work out which one the community is most comfortable with. The usual problem with those types of RFCs is that instead of trying to fine-tune existing proposals, new participants just keep adding more and more proposals until it becomes impossible to come to a consensus. This is what happened in the 2011 attempt to come up with a community based desysopping procedure. We wound up with 17 proposals and nothing came of it. During the 2012 pending changes RFC I used a more restrictive format where three mutually exclusive options were presented and users had to pick one of them. That produced a usable result, but I'm not certain it is the right approach here.
Of course anyone else is more than welcome to move this forward themselves if they don't want to wait for me to get around to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, I agree with this assessment of the consensus and I think a formal close probably isn't necessary. Sunrise (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- If the consensus is that a close would not be helpful, then I withdraw this closure request. Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 116#Close down Persistent Proposals (Initiated 3634 days ago on 11 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Done - No consensus. Status quo is to leave the subpage. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 12#Male murderers (Initiated 3663 days ago on 12 November 2014)? Thanks, --[[User:The Vintage Feminist|The Vintage Feminist]] (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Vegaswikian. Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has devolved into personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. The requestor has withdrawn the proposal, however multiple editors would like it to continue. I would like an neutral administrator to at least go through the discussion and address/hide content that could be considered personal attacks. Mamyles (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3600 days ago on 14 January 2015) This appears to be closed, but is very prematurely done. As such, I've reopened it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus must have reached. --George Ho (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3620 days ago on 25 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agreement to delete. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3603 days ago on 11 January 2015)
- Discussion has run less than five days, and is not unanimous. No reason to close before the standard seven-day period. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Spinningspark. Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, New "vandal stopper" user group (Initiated 3661 days ago on 14 November 2014) needs a formal close to see whether or not there was consensus in the discussion to put together a proposal to present to the community. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Umm, no. It was posted at the idea lab, which means it wasn't there for support and oppose votes, but to come up with a concrete proposal to take to the community. I suggesting opening it at Village Pump Proposals with a specific proposal that can either be yessed or noed. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Achieving a consensus isn't about !votes (of which there seems to be a lot of support there), it's about reading each comment and deciding if there is sufficient support, and what that support might be, for an idea or a proposal. Thanks. —
{{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)00:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)- I don't feel a close is needed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Achieving a consensus isn't about !votes (of which there seems to be a lot of support there), it's about reading each comment and deciding if there is sufficient support, and what that support might be, for an idea or a proposal. Thanks. —
Here's your "close": Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed user right: Vandal fighter Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Closed with a link to the new discussion. Cunard (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3617 days ago on 28 December 2014)
- Done by Spinningspark. Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ulises Heureaux#RfC: Sourced work vs. alleged WP:OR (Initiated 3632 days ago on 13 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Flags of Tamils#Fictional flags (Initiated 3636 days ago on 9 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- No this does not need to be formal Closed; it was more a request by an editor for comments on how policy applies here as he did not initially understand, but that is resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bonobo#Criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research (Initiated 3675 days ago on 31 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Done - Consensus that some mention of criticism should be included, but otherwise the discussion was inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of states with limited recognition#RFC: Propose use of terminologies "non-UN members" (Initiated 3641 days ago on 4 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Done - No consensus
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geopolitical entities not recognised as states#RfC title (Initiated 3632 days ago on 13 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Done - no consensus Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Governor-General of Australia#RfC on governor-general's role (Initiated 3630 days ago on 15 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:U.S. holidays#RfC: Classification of saints' days and other holidays (Initiated 3633 days ago on 12 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zombie (fictional)#Request for comment (Initiated 3632 days ago on 13 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Done - Closed as not a properly formed RFC. Very non-neutral wording. Suggest a new RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Simple easing of RfA (Initiated 3636 days ago on 9 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hedwig of Holstein#RfC: Her name was not Hedwig no matter what we did 5 years ago (Initiated 3645 days ago on 30 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- The RFC is malformed because it does not ask a question, but simply complains. I would close on that basis except that I commented on that basis. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done Sunrise (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have run its course. It looked like there was a consensus, but one of the participants is still dissenting. StAnselm (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done - Since this was never an RFC, there is no deadline for discussion and no procedure or requirement to obtain consensus. Recommend an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa#ref: Remove erroneous birth name "Michael Joseph Hall" from article (Initiated 3652 days ago on 23 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hoel#Merge from Saint Hywel (Initiated 3643 days ago on 2 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Done - Consensus is merge, but may require an admin to merge histories. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced and uninvolved administrator please close the discussion at Talk:2015 Formula One season#Once more. It never should be the discussion it has become. Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3638 days ago on 7 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- There's like three simultaneous issues, aren't there? First the issue of the source, which seems resolved. Then the issue of the alignment and now it looks like an issue with the alignment with the flag. How would it be closed? How about someone create an actual RFC format and let people comment their views in separate subheadings? And this may sound ridiculous but I say someone should actually elevate this to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Multi-column_sortable_standard or bring it to a WP:Sports-level discussion. We may as well have an actual agreed-upon formatting fight done in one place and end these bits and pieces. I still can't figure out why it's only the current season that has squabbling. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's like three simultaneous issues, aren't there? First the issue of the source, which seems resolved. Then the issue of the alignment and now it looks like an issue with the alignment with the flag. How would it be closed? How about someone create an actual RFC format and let people comment their views in separate subheadings? And this may sound ridiculous but I say someone should actually elevate this to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Multi-column_sortable_standard or bring it to a WP:Sports-level discussion. We may as well have an actual agreed-upon formatting fight done in one place and end these bits and pieces. I still can't figure out why it's only the current season that has squabbling. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tibetan Buddhism#RfC: Is the section on Bon sufficient? (Initiated 3665 days ago on 10 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:God the Son#RfC: Statements regarding term "God the Son" not existing in the Bible (Initiated 3650 days ago on 25 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Previous RfC was closed as "no consensus". Change was made anyway. A further RfC was started to try to get a better consensus. It has been open for a more than 2 weeks. Wondering if someone could close it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is inaccurate, The previous RFC was closed no consensus for a medical order. Afterwards the article was changed to a non medical order by an admin after a discussion with consensus from the editors on hand. AlbinoFerret 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3625 days ago on 20 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- What AlbinoFerret wrote is false. The previous RfC was closed as no consensus to change the order. The change to the order was made when an editor made an edit protected request while ignoring the previous RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- What you are saying is false. Per the previous closing "Result: No consensus as to whether the article is primarily medical." in attempting to keep it a prominently medical order. The previous closing also stated "IMO, the way the body of the article launches straight into a discussion of the health effects related the article subject before providing the basic information about what the subject is doesn't look obviously neutral or natural." thats why it was changed. There is a section calling for the stoping of the RFC, that was hidden (collapsed), the closer should read it to fully understand whats going on. AlbinoFerret 23:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- What AlbinoFerret wrote is misleading. There was no consensus to change the order per the previous RFC. No consensus means the order of the sections cannot be changed. Now AlbinoFerret claims "What it is and made of (components) before getting to health claims, these are the majority of the reliable sources."[4] That is not true. The vast majority of the sources are about the health effects. AlbinoFerret believes the safety of e-cigarettes page is a "medical page". QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Im sure the closer will not have reading comprehension issues and understand what I wrote. The order of those sources is components first. There was consensus to change them after the closing of the previous RFC, and the edit was carried out by an admin. Yes, the "Safety of electronic cigarettes", a separate page, dealing with only medical issues, is a medical page, but thats not the page this section, or the RFC is on.AlbinoFerret 20:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- What AlbinoFerret wrote is misleading. There was no consensus to change the order per the previous RFC. No consensus means the order of the sections cannot be changed. Now AlbinoFerret claims "What it is and made of (components) before getting to health claims, these are the majority of the reliable sources."[4] That is not true. The vast majority of the sources are about the health effects. AlbinoFerret believes the safety of e-cigarettes page is a "medical page". QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- What you are saying is false. Per the previous closing "Result: No consensus as to whether the article is primarily medical." in attempting to keep it a prominently medical order. The previous closing also stated "IMO, the way the body of the article launches straight into a discussion of the health effects related the article subject before providing the basic information about what the subject is doesn't look obviously neutral or natural." thats why it was changed. There is a section calling for the stoping of the RFC, that was hidden (collapsed), the closer should read it to fully understand whats going on. AlbinoFerret 23:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- What AlbinoFerret wrote is false. The previous RfC was closed as no consensus to change the order. The change to the order was made when an editor made an edit protected request while ignoring the previous RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Restored for archiving. ClueBot will archive it. Cunard (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bibi Aisha#requests for comment (Initiated 3645 days ago on 30 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her#RfC: Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for the opinion of Ben Shapiro (Initiated 3632 days ago on 13 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done, although the close is now being reviewed below. Apparently this one, at least, was contentious enough to need a formal close.—S Marshall T/C 01:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bitcoin#RfC: Summarizing the "Criminal activities" section in the lede (Initiated 3624 days ago on 21 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done Easy enough Shii (tock) 03:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hands up, don't shoot#summary RFC (Initiated 3641 days ago on 4 December 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Should we very briefly describe a WP:SUMMARY of the shooting and controversy of the evidence/witnesses to give context to the origin of these protests and the gesture the article is about. One proposed wording would be "There is conflicting evidence and witness statements regarding the circumstances of the shooting, and in particular the position of Brown's hands at the time of the shooting."
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#RfC: Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to? (Initiated 3610 days ago on 4 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#RfC: Should the lead describe the orb as a "powerful, coveted orb"? (Initiated 3633 days ago on 12 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Process formalisation (RFC) (Initiated 3637 days ago on 8 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC on adding the following wording (Initiated 3646 days ago on 29 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Objectivity/DB#RfC: Remove issues list? (Initiated 3643 days ago on 2 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Euclidean algorithm#Request for comments (Initiated 3626 days ago on 19 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've looked at this, but I'm not sure it's wise to close it yet because there's still a featured article review in progress. I think that in this case it may be better to let the FAR fully run its course and to take its conclusions into account when closing the RfC.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, and have marked this request Done. If needed, a request can be made here again once the FAR has run its course. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, and have marked this request
- This should be a WP:SNOWBALL close, though it's been open for
1711 days. BlueSalix (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3604 days ago on 10 January 2015)
- There is enough ongoing discussion here for this RfC to run its full term. A SNOW close is not appropriate. Bellerophon talk to me 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the discussion has run its full term by a factor of two. It's been open for 14 days. Only one new comment has been posted in the preceding 2.5 days. There are currently 12 !votes to Delete and 3 !votes to Keep. Snow or not, it's time to close this. BlueSalix (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is enough ongoing discussion here for this RfC to run its full term. A SNOW close is not appropriate. Bellerophon talk to me 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor the consensus at Talk:Aspromonte goat#Sources (Initiated 3630 days ago on 15 December 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Aspromonte goat#RFC on Italian dairy & farming industry sources (Initiated 3654 days ago on 21 November 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Evacuation of East Prussia/Archive 1#RfC: Beevor cited forced to reverse himself (Initiated 3662 days ago on 13 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have posted there to ask whether this still requires closing or not. Formerip (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}. I haven't actually closed the discussion, but a semi-agreed text has been added to the article and there are good indications that it will stick. I've said that they can post a new request if it doesn't happen like that. Formerip (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rotimi Amaechi#RfC:Should the title of this page be changed to Chibuike Amaechi? (Initiated 3624 days ago on 21 December 2014)? Please consider Talk:Rotimi Amaechi#Page move discussion in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:SupremeSAT(Pvt.)#Proposed merge with SupremeSAT (Initiated 4197 days ago on 27 May 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Please snow-close this RFC in which a single editor is fighting to capitalize mustang and edit warred and got the article protected; time to move on. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3597 days ago on 17 January 2015)
- I don't think that's appropriate. Even if the outcome is obvious, it would be better to exhaust this step in dispute resolution properly than snow close it (and find you can't rely on this later down the track because it was closed too early). There are many reasons why a position is asserted and many ways to describe those reasons; better to let all of the comments come in first as it might resolve the dispute. As to the edit-warring, if it's just one editor who won't stop, then the editor's conduct should be at ANI so there is an interim sanction pending the outcome of the RfC. Though right now, the article's protected so there should be no issue.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Getting back out of the protected state so that the obvious consensus can be implemented was my point. RFCs tend to stretch out for a month if not closed when the outcome becomes obvious, which is has become here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, he has attracted a couple more capitalizers now, but the outcome is still clear. The waste of time is sad and pointy. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}} Completed review, no grounds for snow close. NE Ent 13:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination) (Initiated 3601 days ago on 13 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- {{close}} at 03:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC) by Shii. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3602 days ago on 12 January 2015)
- Matter has been relisted, but marking this request as {{done}}. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 16#Lightning in a tropical cyclone (Initiated 3656 days ago on 19 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Closed 18:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC) by Nyttend. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3601 days ago on 13 January 2015)
- Closed 21:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC) by Malcolmxl5. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes (Initiated 3633 days ago on 12 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Dank. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 21#!vote (Initiated 3696 days ago on 10 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 21#!vote (Initiated 3696 days ago on 10 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please drop by to close a discussion at Talk:Elon Musk#Proposal 1: on Musk and PayPal? The discussion has been open for almost thirty days with no recent action in a couple of weeks. Thanks. N2e (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3627 days ago on 18 December 2014)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#POV Issues Regarding Controversy Section (Initiated 3635 days ago on 10 December 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RFC, where the opening poster wrote:
Since the above discussion keeps running around in circles :
The grand jury Controversy section currently* consists of 18 quotes/opinions plus the table.
- Should we keep quotes, or move to a more prose style summary
- If kept as quotes, should the number of quotes be reduced
- Or a summary plus a small number of representative quotes
- Should the table be kept, or moved into prose
* The current version may differ from the version when this RFC started.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Battle of Chawinda#DID the battle lead to Major Pakistani victory? (Initiated 3628 days ago on 17 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mobile, Alabama#RfC: Flag icon for Ariel, an Israel in the occupied West Bank (Initiated 3611 days ago on 3 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done by someone else Shii (tock) 19:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of literary awards#RfC: Should these four external links be included? (Initiated 3634 days ago on 11 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done by someone else Shii (tock) 19:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion has devolved past the point of productivity. -- Calidum 04:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This RfC has been open for 12 days and active discussion has concluded, with the last comment posted 4 days ago. There are currently 10 !votes supporting the RfC (remove an audio file from the article) and 12 !votes opposing the RfC (keep an audio file in the article) - there are actually 15 !votes opposing the RfC but 3 appear to be joke !votes from IP editors. Support of the RfC, therefore, lacks even a simple majority let alone a wide consensus. I request the RfC be closed as No consensus has been reached to remove the audio file in question from this article. BlueSalix (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Already done - This closure had been requested further up the board and has now been closed. Bellerophon talk to me 00:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please someone close this before we drown in trolls from 4chan. Haminoon (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism#RfC: Are texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts reliable secondary sources? (Initiated 3645 days ago on 30 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This audio file deletion proposal has been open for more than a full term (8 days). After a very thorough discussion and with the rate of participation falling off to almost nothing in the last two days, there is clearly no consensus (17 !votes against deletion, 14 !votes in favor of deletion) and the deletion proposal should be closed as a failed proposal. BlueSalix (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC) {{close}} - Peripitus (Talk) 09:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg#RfC: How should we color Kansas? (Initiated 3654 days ago on 21 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Renault#RfC: Should we include awards lists for car models in this article? (Initiated 3636 days ago on 9 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to include a link to the Wikipedia Adventure in the Welcome template (Initiated 3621 days ago on 24 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 15#Welfare check (Initiated 3668 days ago on 7 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Steel1943 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I asked for closure in the thread here. Now requesting a close here. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC) {{done}} by Drmies here Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
There has been no discussion on the topic for a week now, and the RFC is over a month old (the discussion as a whole, even older). Can someone please determine the state of consensus? (Initiated 3629 days ago on 16 December 2014) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC) {{Done}}
This proposed move discussion was started more than 5 months ago. I believe it's time to be closed. Kosovo town names are very controversial topic, so I believe that it is better if this discussion is closed, than to just leave it like that. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 21#9-24 (Initiated 3684 days ago on 22 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Relisted to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5#9-24. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think everything that was going to be said has been said; probably no consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Natg_19. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think everything that was going to be said has been said; probably no consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#List of ...for Dummies books (Initiated 3645 days ago on 30 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Ivanvector. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreement is to overturn. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today? (Initiated 3608 days ago on 6 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Things have moved on and this can now be closed with no assessment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Archived. Cunard (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#Kirchner un speech (Initiated 3675 days ago on 31 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Nyttend. Restored for automatic archiving by ClueBot III (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#August 9 1974 (Initiated 3646 days ago on 29 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Natg 19. Restored for automatic archiving by ClueBot III (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Ma Mati Manush
- Here was a merge proposal Talk:All India Trinamool Congress#Merger proposal (Merge proposals are sometimes very disturbing, we, on Wikipedia, have no systematic procedure to close these discussions (like AFD or RM). (I am an involved editor and article creator) --Tito☸Dutta 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Titodutta: I'm not sure it really does need a formal close; the input given is too limited and is terribly stale (Initiated 3909 days ago on 11 March 2014), so I wouldn't be comfortable formally closing that in any way. You can just probably run things as they are and boldly remove the tags until the question is raised again (if ever), but it may be worth opening a request for comment so the question can be resolved properly on a more long-term basis. By the way, congratulations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Cunard (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Titodutta: I'm not sure it really does need a formal close; the input given is too limited and is terribly stale (Initiated 3909 days ago on 11 March 2014), so I wouldn't be comfortable formally closing that in any way. You can just probably run things as they are and boldly remove the tags until the question is raised again (if ever), but it may be worth opening a request for comment so the question can be resolved properly on a more long-term basis. By the way, congratulations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, our RfC expired today. Would someone please review and close? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Nyttend. Restored for automatic archiving by ClueBot III (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa (Initiated 3628 days ago on 17 December 2014)? (Consensus seems clear, but I cannot close it since I am involved and since I am a non-administrator; closing this will help clear the backlog at RFD.) Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Another no consensus? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Nyttend. I'm a little unclear on what the outcome is, but I'm discussing it with the closer. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It looks like this has been sufficiently debated. An involved editor went ahead and performed the merge, but it was reverted by another involved editor. I think we need an uninvolved editor to determine consensus. StAnselm (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3602 days ago on 12 January 2015)
- I've looked at this, StAnselm, and although the conclusion appears to be obvious at first glance, I think it might still be a little too early to close. Better to give it another few days, so that it's absolutely clear that everyone's had every chance to make their case; otherwise there's a risk of the close being overturned for being premature.—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Although a consensus appears to have been reached and sufficient time passed to gather comments, another user reverted my merge/redirect of Leelah's Law into Death of Leelah Alcorn due to my having started the discussion and not waiting longer, so an uninvolved editor would be appreciated to close this, thanks! Reywas92Talk 02:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Could someone go ahead and close this properly please? There is currently an edit war among several editors (including User:ClueBot NG!) completing and then reverting the merge. StAnselm (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- User:S Marshall, can you or someone else please close this? It's been three weeks and no one else has commented... Next time I'm just doing an AFD since those have a seven-day limit... Thanks, Reywas92Talk 05:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Link. Cunard (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 9#Shittsburgh? (Initiated 3612 days ago on 2 January 2015) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by User:BDD. Thanks! Natg 19 (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Guy Fawkes mask#Images RFC (Initiated 3617 days ago on 28 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the 2012 Hong Kong legislative election in New Territories East, which has been open for over one month, and has now been relisted thrice. I can not close the discussion per WP:INVOLVED. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's not clear what your position is. Did you change your mind about redirecting, or would you accept a merge to Opinion polling for the Hong Kong legislative election, 2012 as an alternative? Alakzi (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Reply -Whatever keeps any of those articles from going well over 100 kB, but keeps the history of the articles somewhere. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}--v/r - TP 08:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Now that the original closer has returned from a 4-week absence and made his comments, no further delay is necessary. Several other open RMs hinge on the outcome. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3621 days ago on 24 December 2014)
- It appears that the move was done in December 2014 and that this item can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- It appears that the move was done in December 2014 and that this item can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please? The discussion has basically resolved. You barely even need to make a judgment. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Since the moves that depended on this have closed without it, and since we've moved on and implemented the suggested path forward, this can now stay open forever without hurting anything. One more piece of evidence for my claim the WP:MRV is a deserted wasteland, a failed experiment. Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Dicklyon (withdrawn). Number 57 21:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussion ongoing for six weeks has devolved past the point of productivity. -- Calidum 21:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Given the tenor, I would propose having an uninvolved three-admin panel close this one. I have closed previous discussions on the capitalization issue (I believe one had consensus for a move, one failed to gain consensus, and one was a split decision on a proposed multi-move), and therefore recuse myself from further involvement. Based on my previous experience with three-admin panels, I would recommend User:Adjwilley, User:TParis, and User:Kww, though it would also be good to get some more admins involved in that process. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Business interests impacted for me here, so I'm going to beg off.—Kww(talk) 14:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Didn't see this was discussed here, but I closed it three days ago. Number 57 21:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Please snow-close the multiple RMs started by a new editor unfamiliar with WP:USPLACE; these are unanimously opposed and disruptive:
- Talk:Nahant,_Massachusetts#Requested_move_7_February_2015
- Talk:Belchertown,_Massachusetts#Requested_move_7_February_2015
- Talk:Aquinnah,_Massachusetts#Requested_move_7_February_2015
Dicklyon (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- All closed. {{Done}} Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor the consensus at Talk:Aspromonte goat#RFC on citation formatting (Initiated 3654 days ago on 21 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Restored after accidental removal by ClueBot III (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Close Review Request after overturn and reclose (Initiated 3628 days ago on 17 December 2014) after there has been sufficient discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure that discussion has been sufficient already... Looks like it had to be dearchived twice... Closing it would probably be a good idea now... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- It was archived again. I guess there is little need to unarchive it at the moment, given that the discussion itself seems to be over, as it looks like we'll need to wait a little for the close; the closer can obviously unarchive it. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's a reason no one has closed this yet. I'd personally rather shoot myself in the head. Just let it die. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll archive this request in the next couple of days if nobody objects (and if nobody else gets there first). Sunrise (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't archive it until it's resolved. Alsee (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't archive it until it's resolved. Alsee (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll archive this request in the next couple of days if nobody objects (and if nobody else gets there first). Sunrise (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's a reason no one has closed this yet. I'd personally rather shoot myself in the head. Just let it die. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it is not that hard. The closer of the original discussion (first part) has said that he is not going to explain how he got the answer, because that would lead to a long discussion (Special:Diff/640249413 - "I'm not going to give out a list when the only effect will be to give you as many reasons as there are entries for pointlessly rehashing the debate."). That is the most important point (although there are others). If the closer thinks that it is good reasoning corresponding to policy and one should simply trust the closer, discussion will be closed as "endorse", if closer thinks that reasoning behind the close has to be explained, discussion will be closed as "overturn". The discussion about the second part is even shorter and the same point is even clearer. Nothing hard here.
- Of course, there is a problem that uninvolved closers might be hard to find... To some extent, even the ones who have cooperated with WMF can be seen as "semi-involved"... But anyway, the close of this discussion doesn't have to happen as soon as possible at any cost. It is more important that it would be closed well. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an administrator assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Closure Review Request on Climate Engineering (Initiated 3616 days ago on 29 December 2014) Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education#RfC: Postdoctoral research and Alumnus (Initiated 3639 days ago on 6 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 49#PROPOSAL: the standard disambiguator for mixed martial arts practioner (Initiated 3636 days ago on 9 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} although because I am an old crab I feel compelled to point out tht consensus was so obvious that it took as much time to post this request as it did to evaluate the discssion. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 18#The Weight of Chains 2 (Initiated 3596 days ago on 18 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Sandstein. Number 57 09:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cairns child killings#Names of the children (Initiated 3611 days ago on 3 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}} - Rough consensus against including the names of the murdered children. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fractional-reserve banking#RfC: How to decide which view is now mainstream, avoiding original research (Initiated 3612 days ago on 2 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC) {{Done}} - No consensus - No obvious question with respect to text of article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Breitbart (website)#RfC (Initiated 3615 days ago on 30 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC) {{Done}} - section of article deleted as per consensus of RFC
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Age disparity in sexual relationships#Possible illustration (Initiated 3611 days ago on 3 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Which unbiased picture should be [used in] the lead?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Done — Sebastian 08:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
This 27 Dec. RFC could use a close please. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Since there appears to be consensus for the change, I went ahead and made the change to the advice at WP:JR and have been moving and changing dozens of articles to see if there's any objection; so far, no pushback. Still it would be nice to see a close recognizing the consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Done - Formally closed as comma not needed and prefer no comma. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:9/11 Truth movement#RfC: Are details about official 9/11 attack in WP:LEAD (Initiated 3618 days ago on 27 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}} Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC: Comma or no comma before Jr. and Sr. (Initiated 3618 days ago on 27 December 2014)? Please consider the related closed RfC Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC: Comma before Jr. or Sr. (initiated 30 October 2014) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}} - Actually, there were two sections in the MOS talk page discussing the comma. The first was not a formal RFC. The second was a formal RFC. The formal RFC has been closed as consensus that the comma is not needed. The earlier discussion has been boxed as if it were closed. Is this as clear as mud? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox album#"Executive producers" parameter re-proposal (Initiated 3623 days ago on 22 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't personally see any clear consensus here. There were only a handful of editors in the discussion and each seems to have a different solution. Sam Walton (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}. I added your comment here as a close of the discussion. Thank you for reviewing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive 5#RfC: What should be in this article: a short summary of United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, or a longer version? (Initiated 3638 days ago on 7 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}} - There was consensus that the current text on the 2012 election is too long, but no specific consensus on how much to shorten it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Steve Scalise#RFC (Initiated 3615 days ago on 30 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}} - Do not use a blog as a source. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Astrophysics#RfC: Should Carl Sagan be included as a prominent, notable and respected astrophysicist? (Initiated 3617 days ago on 28 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}} - Consensus was to include Sagan. He was already in the list, so no change. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Newport Beach California Temple#Located on the former site of a dump (Initiated 3615 days ago on 30 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}} - Consensus against inclusion of what appears to be based on a personal recollection. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brian Harvey#Request for comment (Initiated 3617 days ago on 28 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Hubert Walter#Opposition of Herbert Poore to his election (Initiated 3611 days ago on 3 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the sentence that moral was a problem for Serbian forces? and Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the paragraph about the high moral of the Serbian forces in this article?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the sentence that moral was a problem for Serbian forces? (Initiated 3640 days ago on 5 December 2014) and Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the paragraph about the high moral of the Serbian forces in this article? (Initiated 3640 days ago on 5 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}} Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3596 days ago on 18 January 2015) Could an admin or qualified non-admin see to this? --BDD (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor or an admin please close these TfD discussions? It seems like there's a backlog of TfDs to be closed. Thanks in advance!
- Template:Infobox Australian road (Initiated 3615 days ago on 30 December 2014)
- Done by TCN7JM. Natg 19 (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Paris street (Initiated 3615 days ago on 30 December 2014)
- Done by Alakzi. Natg 19 (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: VEVO channels in "by subscribers" section (Initiated 3610 days ago on 4 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Revisiting past proposal – Viewdelete userright (Initiated 3610 days ago on 4 January 2015)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Long-overdue requested moves
I have closed all the outstanding RM moves from December, except these three in which I participated. Hopefully the outcome in all three is fairly clear anyway:
- Talk:All-time Pune F.C. squad#Requested move 16 December 2014
- Talk:Coalition of the Radical Left#Requested move 20 December 2014
- Talk:Next Qatari general election#Requested move 29 December 2014
Number 57 16:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Only the Pune one remains, and with no oppose !votes, really should be easy for a closer. Number 57 22:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Experienced editor, preferably an admin, needed to close trainwreck of a RFC involving a Muhammad image. (Initiated 3604 days ago on 10 January 2015) --NeilN talk to me 16:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
An RfC from July 2013 that was never closed. --McGeddon (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Abortion debate#Pro-abortion violence section (Initiated 3606 days ago on 8 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done by JzG --BDD (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#National Anthem Act (Initiated 3650 days ago on 25 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by JzG --BDD (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- RFC needs closing: proposed wording and survey at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Back to the original question. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3629 days ago on 16 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- The RfC tag was not added until 28 December so the RfC was not open for very long and the section has not been open 30 days since the RfC tag was added, and the conversation continues with new contributors.-- PBS (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- The conversation had pretty well settled down until PBS canvassed 50 users yesterday ([5]) through his alternate account PBS-AWB. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, we've now gone past 30 days since the RFC tag was added, and more than six weeks since the discussion was initiated (on 16 December 2014). The discussion there seems to have died down to a slow simmer. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- The conversation had pretty well settled down until PBS canvassed 50 users yesterday ([5]) through his alternate account PBS-AWB. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- The RfC tag was not added until 28 December so the RfC was not open for very long and the section has not been open 30 days since the RfC tag was added, and the conversation continues with new contributors.-- PBS (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}: Closed by JzG. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Needs closing so that a software change can be suggested if successful. Sam Walton (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3629 days ago on 16 December 2014)
- {{done}} Drmies (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her#RfC: Should Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the Article? (Initiated 3623 days ago on 22 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 14#Blues guitar playing? (Initiated 3607 days ago on 7 January 2015) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 14#Islamic State (Caliphate)? (Initiated 3609 days ago on 5 January 2015) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 14#Islamic State (organization)? (Initiated 3609 days ago on 5 January 2015) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 15#The Islamic State (Caliphate)? (Initiated 3609 days ago on 5 January 2015) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 15#Blackbird (song)? (Initiated 3609 days ago on 5 January 2015) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Requesting review of close of RfC at Griffin article (Initiated 3579 days ago on 4 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC) {{done}} by Drmies here. Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Photo (Initiated 3608 days ago on 6 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Nikola Tesla#Milutin, Nikola's father (Initiated 3597 days ago on 17 January 2015)? Please consider the previous RfC Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 7#RfC: Is Tesla's father a Serbian Orthodox priest (Initiated 14 July 2014) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#RfC: Should links to Prager University in speakers' "External links" sections be kept or removed? (Initiated 3594 days ago on 20 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:RTI International#Request for comment (Initiated 3594 days ago on 20 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "What is the most appropriate sourcing, weight and NPOV summary of RTI's work in Iraq. Please see options a, b and c at Talk:RTI_International/RFC." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Hey! Cunard! Did I just learn something? That OP means opening poster? That is SO exciting! Drmies (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mexicans of European descent#Two-Part RFC on Statements in Lede Section of Article (Initiated 3601 days ago on 13 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:73 (number)#RfC: 73 in Big Bang Theory (Initiated 3605 days ago on 9 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy#RfC -- Debate over claims of discrimination in academia (Initiated 3599 days ago on 15 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Weeknd#RfC: Is this material acceptable per WP:OR? (Initiated 3595 days ago on 19 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)