Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 17
 | This is an archive of past discussions on 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/Archive 3#Request for comment on media section (Initiated 3646 days ago on 2 December 2014)? The "Media coverage" section is currently in the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course (Initiated 3637 days ago on 11 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It was archived. The RfC is still relevant to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Could an experienced editor, preferably an admin, close this RFC (Initiated 3619 days ago on 29 December 2014). It concerns whether there should be references in the lead to the Kurds being an "Iranian people". It's a highly contentious topic that is prone to drive-by edit-warring. A proposal to resolve the issue was made in the following thread and discussion now seems to come to an end. But the drive-by edit warring continues. It would be good to see if we have a long-term solution out of the RFC, backed by an experienced editor's assessment. DeCausa (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Requesting an uninvolved editor to close this RfC that I initiated. Most were "no", although Nyttend voted no but stated the temple should be included. I would appreciate someone reviewing the arguments and close the RfC. [(Initiated 3619 days ago on 29 December 2014)] Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Done by User:JzG. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Manhattan#Photo feedback requested (Initiated 3613 days ago on 4 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep#Should we permit deletion nominations advocating for a redirect? (Initiated 3621 days ago on 27 December 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Not closed but I trust the consensus is clear enough for an unambiguous closure. One editor asserted there had never been any prior discussions - see also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive196#Michael_Grimm_.28politician, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive199#Michael_Grimm_.28politician, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive197#Michael_Grimm_.28politician.29_query. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive243 has removal of "fucking" proper per WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#Disruptive_editing_in_Michael_Grimm_.28politician , Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive244#User:Collect_reported_by_User:Anarchangel_.28Result:_ , Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#silly_season_in_full_force_and_vigour_at_Michael_Grimm_.28politician.29, which as a group rather suggest, in my opinion, that this has been discussed and discussed and discussed - each time with the with he same result -- we do not need "fucking" as part of a quote in a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Kay#RfC: Is the lead section fine? (Initiated 3610 days ago on 7 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bible#RfC: inclusion of the Lim quote (Initiated 3574 days ago on 12 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Tenchi Muyo! characters#RfC: Should a certain fictional character be classified as omnipotent, or near omnipotent? (Initiated 3629 days ago on 19 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done Cunard, you should really have a look at that discussion. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5#Swami Ji Shri 1008 Shree Ram Kishor Ji Maharaj
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5#Swami Ji Shri 1008 Shree Ram Kishor Ji Maharaj? (Initiated 3622 days ago on 26 December 2014) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Martijn Hoekstra. Natg 19 (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus (if any) at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Action_needed_here.3B_proposal and close the thread. (Initiated 3584 days ago on 2 February 2015) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hasteur.27s_Alternative_Proposal is the recent section, with a concise summary of report. --Lapadite (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oseltamivir#RfC: WP:WEIGHT in the Oseltamivir article given direct contradiction between Cochrane review and the consensus of medical authorities (Initiated 3640 days ago on 8 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Proposal to add new 3RRNO criteria (Initiated 3609 days ago on 8 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Open for a week longer than the usual 1-week listing with no comments since the 15th. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Libertarianism#RfC: Should this article minimize, but not remove, libertarian socialism? (Initiated 3601 days ago on 16 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dabangg#Proposed merge with Chulbul Pandey (Initiated 3609 days ago on 8 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done by JzG. Number 57 16:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Arab Winter#Change article title? (Initiated 3597 days ago on 20 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#RfC: WP:SAWW Lead vs Body (Initiated 3607 days ago on 10 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Not done It looks like editors have already resolved this on their own. Sunrise (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Economic growth#Request for comments (Initiated 3606 days ago on 11 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Which version of the income equality section more accurately reflects the findings of the peer reviewed literature reviews, Marek's or Ellen's?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:George Zimmerman#RfC: Should the police record section be reduced (Initiated 3606 days ago on 11 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Jersey City, New Jersey#Lead image for the page (Initiated 3613 days ago on 4 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done by JzG. Number 57 17:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hamas#RfC: "Hamas vs European Council" European Court's decision. Should the following related information be included ? (Initiated 3627 days ago on 21 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh (Initiated 3647 days ago on 1 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion has been ongoing for two months and it's only been getting more heated. No sign of consensus for merging in sight. (Initiated 3640 days ago on 8 December 2014) Alakzi (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I second Alakzi's request above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Also, for a timeline of this TfD see Special:Diff/645054843. There was a 20-day 'break period' I neglected to mention; I apologise. Alakzi (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Drmies (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia#Request for comment (Initiated 3613 days ago on 4 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This RfC has only been going on for three weeks, but the discussion has well and truly ended, with no contribution for more than a week. (Also, it's a continuation of a previous discussion, and so the issue has been dragging on a long time.) I thought the consensus was clear to exclude the text under discussion, but I checked with the lone "include" !voter and he or she didn't think so. [(Initiated 3595 days ago on 22 January 2015)] StAnselm (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Review of the Closing for a WP:RFC for America: Imagine the World Without Her (Initiated 3593 days ago on 24 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
RFC finished a while back and nobody's commented for around a week. Can an admin please assess consensus and close? Bosstopher (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by JzG. Sunrise (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox (Initiated 3608 days ago on 9 January 2015)? Please consider the closed RfCs Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting (Initiated 6 May 2014) and Template talk:Succession box#RfC (Initiated 26 November 2014) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This is covered in Kraxler's request below where the argument that a close where the closer finds strong arguments against a proposal is not valid, although the policies and guidelines specify that a closer may due so. The Successionbox close is not at issue as the infobox != successionbox. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I didn't see this request for closure, and added three days later a second request for closure for the same RfC further down. This should be marked as stale. RfC was closed in the meanwhile. Kraxler (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by JzG. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I didn't see this request for closure, and added three days later a second request for closure for the same RfC further down. This should be marked as stale. RfC was closed in the meanwhile. Kraxler (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox duplicate
-
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox (Initiated 3608 days ago on 9 January 2015)? Please consider the closed RfCs Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting (Initiated 6 May 2014) and Template talk:Succession box#RfC (Initiated 26 November 2014) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: I did not see the abovementioned post by Cunard, and unwittingly duplicated the request three days later. I restored the original request, because the subsequent closing is in the process of being reviewed, for completeness sake, and it might become relevant. Kraxler (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess consensus and close this discussion? Thank you. Kraxler (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- The RfC was closed with a faulty rationale by User:JzG. Could someby have another look at it. I added a comment there to make clear what I find fault with. Kraxler (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose as the closure was fine except the proposer thinks "arguments against are rather strong" is an invalid close. The proposer now thinks he can unilaterally void the prior RfC by [1] I hereby give notice that the previous "consensus" is no further recognized as such. You can't eat your cake and have it too. I suggest we abide by WP:CONSENSUS and recognize that a closer may note the arguments against are rather strong without facing this sort of request (noting the closer JzG was not notified of this action) Collect (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- The closing rationale is faulty because it is not discernable what was the result. Especially in relation to the previously established "consensus". So what was the result? The closer states that there was consensus for the proposal, but somehow, with parts struck through, there is something else. Also, if 20 can not establish enough consensus to be taken seriously, why could 14? Come on Collect, that's a simple question. Why can 14, and 20 can not? I would be willing to respect consensus, if someone could tell me what is the consensus. Kraxler (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose as the closure was fine except the proposer thinks "arguments against are rather strong" is an invalid close. The proposer now thinks he can unilaterally void the prior RfC by [1] I hereby give notice that the previous "consensus" is no further recognized as such. You can't eat your cake and have it too. I suggest we abide by WP:CONSENSUS and recognize that a closer may note the arguments against are rather strong without facing this sort of request (noting the closer JzG was not notified of this action) Collect (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Prostitution in Canada#changing "Anti-prostitution" and "pro-prostitution" headers? (Initiated 3598 days ago on 19 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
This thread, which eilicited substantial discussion and polling, has been auto-archived without closure. In fairness to all and to avoid repeating discussion of these issues in the future, an Admin is needed to undo the archiving and evaluate consensus in order to resolve this matter. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
—174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by JzG. Number 57 16:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep#Should we permit deletion nominations advocating for a redirect? (Initiated 3622 days ago on 26 December 2014) Thanks, Deadbeef 21:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by JzG. Number 57 16:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin look at these three DRV discussions, close them and eventually re-close (or relist wit an appropriate rationale) the three relevant AfDs? The situation requires an immediate action, as the AfD closes were vacated and the three AfDs are "virtually" reopened, and, citing one editor, "AfD and DRV running on the same article at the same time is just crazy". Cavarrone 07:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Salvidrim!. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess consensus and close this discussion? Much obliged. RGloucester — ☎ 05:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Off to don my tin hat now. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Template:Infobox university facultyTemplate:Infobox medical collegeTemplate:Bgr- Template:Grey line
Template:Bg-cTemplate:Infobox Taiwan stationTemplate:Infobox Election Campaign- Template:Infobox Electoral reform
- Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter
- Template:Quotation
Template:BqTemplate:Infobox Cambridge college(closed)Template:Welcome-anon-border(closed)
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) 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3649 days ago on 29 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- All of these have been Done Sunrise (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at the following template discussions:
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter – (Initiated 3694 days ago on 15 October 2014)
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Bq - (Initiated 3689 days ago on 20 October 2014)
- Done by Frietjes - closed as redirect. Natg 19 (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Quotation – (Initiated 3688 days ago on 21 October 2014)
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox Taiwan station – (Initiated 3685 days ago on 24 October 2014)
- Done by Martijn Hoekstra - closed as delete. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox Election Campaign – (Initiated 3685 days ago on 24 October 2014)
- Done by Martijn Hoekstra - closed as no consensus. Natg 19 (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox Electoral reform – (Initiated 3685 days ago on 24 October 2014)
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Ctr – (Initiated 3680 days ago on 29 October 2014)
- Done by Edokter - closed as delete. Natg 19 (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Grey line – (Initiated 3680 days ago on 29 October 2014)
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Bg-c – (Initiated 3680 days ago on 29 October 2014)
- Done by Jackmcbarn - closed as subst and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Bgr– (Initiated 3677 days ago on 1 November 2014)
- Done by Mr. Stradivarius - closed as no consensus. Natg 19 (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox university faculty – (Initiated 3663 days ago on 15 November 2014)
- Done by Mr. Stradivarius - closed as delete. Natg 19 (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox medical college – (Initiated 3663 days ago on 15 November 2014)
- Done by Mr. Stradivarius - closed as delete. Natg 19 (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox Cambridge college - (Initiated 3649 days ago on 29 November 2014)
- Done by Oiyarbepsy - closed as don't merge. Natg 19 (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- All of these have been Done Sunrise (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- All of these have been
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 118#Turn the MoodBar back on (Initiated 3613 days ago on 4 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- The consensus seems clear, but from the page history it seems that this was never advertised as an RfC. As such, I'm not sure if a close would be helpful here, since it could be challenged on the grounds of needing input from a wider section of the community before a site-wide change. Any thoughts on closing with this rationale, and/or reopening the discussion with the RfC template attached? Sunrise (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would be fine with closing it or reopening and relisting it as an RfC. Cunard (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I lean towards relisting myself - I think it's the wisest choice given the potential problems should the closure be challenged. I'd prefer input from at least a couple more editors before proceeding with that though. :-) Sunrise (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- There's actually no point in relisting it. The WMF has already already weighed in on this discussion here stating that
the proposal to re-enable Moodbar at Enwiki has been declined
. I'll close the proposal and direct folks to that discussion for clarification. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC) - {{done}}. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- There's actually no point in relisting it. The WMF has already already weighed in on this discussion here stating that
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Public Ivy#Remove Public Ivy from college and university article leads? (Initiated 3626 days ago on 22 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done by JzG. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 4#Furfag? (Initiated 3589 days ago on 28 January 2015) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Swarm. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 4#Ponyfag? (Initiated 3588 days ago on 29 January 2015) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done by JzG. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Request for review of closure at AN/I (Initiated 3578 days ago on 8 February 2015)? A discussion participant wrote: "Since there appears to be no agreement between myself and involved admins, I would like to request closure by an uninvolved admin." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not done - stale. There's nothings to be changed, anyway; consensus that the original close is fine is pretty obvious; if it wasn't, it wouldn't have been archived off ANI without further comment. Marking
|done=yesto uncategorize. HiDrNick! 17:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to auto-transclude /doc subpages (Initiated 3633 days ago on 15 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a discussion on a topic that has, in the past, proved so controversial that general sanctions are in force. For that reason, and because of the general sanctions, it would be very useful for us to actually have an external editor judge whether consensus has been reached or not - as opposed to the discussion just being removed mysteriously from the page with no explanation given beyond an edit summary claiming that no admin is needed. The risk at present is that people might act on a consensus that they believe might exist in this discussion, only to be sanctioned under the general sanctions if admins at WP:AN disagree. It may be that no admin is formally needed to close the discussion - any uninvolved editor can close the discussion after all - but it would be entirely false to say that a close would serve no purpose or is not needed. It really is.
So would an uninvolved editor please close the discussion. If you feel the point is obvious, then great! In that case, please close it with a statement of the obvious. But it does need to be closed. Kahastok talk 23:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- As the initiator of the discussion in question, I concur with the need for an uninvolved editor or admin to review the discussion and determine whether a consensus has indeed been reached. The whole purpose of this discussion, as Kahastok touched upon, was to determine a consensus for the use of metric vs. imperial units in the infobox of various personnel in association football. Without getting into too much detail here, the desire is to have a WikiProject-wide guideline for the use of height and weight units and how they would be inserted without the need for a discussion on every article which might be UK related as presently required by WP:GS/UKU. The need for an uninvolved editor or admin is to avoid any appearance of the process being railroaded by a few editors. — Jkudlick tcs 00:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This has now been archived here, but a close remains relevant. Would somebody please close it? Kahastok talk 09:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by someone else. --slakr\ talk / 16:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I started this discussion, and I was expecting an automatic closure because I didn't know how the system worked. It was automatically archived. Is it too late? − Thisismyrofl (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (noted above) --slakr\ talk / 17:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment after February 16 at 00:16 UTC. (Initiated 3571 days ago on 15 February 2015) Note that the discussion is over 40,000 words. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 02:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 23:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Magnum Crimen#Questions related to basic editorial rules, validity of the text changes, and civilty (Initiated 3607 days ago on 10 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by someone else --slakr\ talk / 01:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin consider closing this? Initially it seemed like a case of WP:POT, but now I don't know what it is. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by someone else --slakr\ talk / 01:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
states : This RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges. It is recommended that this RfC be closed by an Admin - one who has no previous involvement in the AfC process. This RfC for an emergency measure has run for 11 days and participation has tailed off; a consensus appears to have been reached so would an uninvolved admin please consider closing it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
From here at WP:AN:
Would an admin assess the consensus the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script (initiated 5 February 2015)? According to this post at WP:ANRFC, this is an "RfC for an emergency measure". Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- You mean to assess if there is a clear consensus? Despite this being an emergency measure, the RfC itself says "this RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges" so it should probably be allowed to continue to run the 30 days if there is no clear consensus. BTW, I'm seeing !votes on 1st February so I think the 5 February date must be wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Cunard (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I see that an involved party (namely, the user making the original proposal) has taken it upon himself to close the RfC even though he is *not* uninvolved, the RfC has only run for 15 of the normal 30 days and the proposal is controversial. I believe this should be reverted at once, but would prefer not to become involved in an edit war by reverting it myself. Comments? K7L (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- 30 days have passed. The discussion can now be closed. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Mdann52. Cunard (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Discusion has tapered off but a single editor won't let the matter drop, threatening to initiate their proposed changes if editors will not continue participating. It really needs to be formally closed so everyone involved can move on. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Closed. SamuelDay1 (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Premature close request. It had not yet been 30 days (even since the start of the previous RFC), no examples of a “series subject” title (which is not also a series name) have yet been given, and concerns about name/subject confusion have yet to be addressed. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's the same WP:POINTY discussion going no-where and fast. Re-closed. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- There’s nothing POINTy about it. The text seems problematic for reasons I’ve outlined, and no article titles seem to abide by it. Unless “subject” is another word for “name,” this has not yet been addressed. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's only problematic to you. SchroCat's text at the bottom of the section sums it up perfectly. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- It would be problematic to a good many more people if it’s ever followed, and I broke it down here. Consensus isn’t (properly) measured by simple vote count, but by the strength of the arguments. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Done by SamuelDay1. Cunard (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- It would be problematic to a good many more people if it’s ever followed, and I broke it down here. Consensus isn’t (properly) measured by simple vote count, but by the strength of the arguments. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's only problematic to you. SchroCat's text at the bottom of the section sums it up perfectly. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- There’s nothing POINTy about it. The text seems problematic for reasons I’ve outlined, and no article titles seem to abide by it. Unless “subject” is another word for “name,” this has not yet been addressed. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's the same WP:POINTY discussion going no-where and fast. Re-closed. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Premature close request. It had not yet been 30 days (even since the start of the previous RFC), no examples of a “series subject” title (which is not also a series name) have yet been given, and concerns about name/subject confusion have yet to be addressed. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please close any RfCs about Kit Carson if they have run out of "response" time. One editor makes editing and progress hopeless. He/she admits knowing nothing about Carson, but finds something to "snaggle" the article's progress at every turn. Thanks! SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Talk:Kit Carson#RfC: Which infobox should be used? was closed by SPACKlick. Cunard (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Kindly assess consensus and close this MR. RGloucester — ☎ 18:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} --BDD (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 118#Appending the Manual of Style on gender-neutral language
- Please assess consensus (for main and/or alternate proposals) and close the discussion, which will provide guidance for editors. (Initiated 3585 days ago on 1 February 2015), with no new comments for a week. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of the Somme#RFC on Controversy and Language of Writing (Initiated 3593 days ago on 24 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israel#RfC: Representative Democracy (Initiated 3585 days ago on 1 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israel#RFC: Creating a NPOV Israel article in regard to massacres and bombings (Initiated 3585 days ago on 1 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islam#Slavery and "Family Life" -- request for comments (Initiated 3590 days ago on 27 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Blue#How big should the lead section be and what should be in it? (Initiated 3582 days ago on 4 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus for change? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Hari#RfC (Initiated 3593 days ago on 24 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Is an extended section on 'Criticism of apology' proper in this BLP?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC) {{Done}} NE Ent 23:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert Kagan#RfC regarding external links (Initiated 3582 days ago on 4 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Armed Iraqi groups in the Iraq War and the Iraq Civil War#RfC, best way of categorising groups (Initiated 3622 days ago on 26 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussion has tapered off; consensus seems clear but someone not involved should look at it. -- Calidum 21:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion has tapered off; requesting closing. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Little or no input here. Requesting for a closure as it's been dragging on for sometime. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This should be an easy one. The discussion is straying off-topic and is being perpetuated unnecessarily. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}. As you say, easy. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:David M. Cote#Updating Cote's Biography ((Initiated 3595 days ago on 22 January 2015))? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there's anything to close here - it looks like the RfC was advertised more to bring attention to the issue rather than to answer any specific question. Anyways, I've added a comment. Sunrise (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} feedback provided. Cunard (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes#RfC 2 (Initiated 3594 days ago on 23 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
This article specifies:
:This list consists of American politicians convicted of crimes either committed or prosecuted while holding office in the federal government. It includes politicians who were convicted or pleaded guilty in a court of law; and does not include politicians involved in unprosecuted scandals (which may or may not have been illegal in nature), or politicians who have only been arrested or indicted. The list also does not include crimes which occur outside the politician’s tenure unless they specifically stem from acts while they were in office.
Was Spiro Agnew convicted while in Federal office or prosecuted while in Federal office for "acts committed while (he) was in office"?
Please consider the RfC close of Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes#re-adding clear non-politicians (Initiated 19 July 2012) and Talk:David M. Cote#Updating Cote's Biography (Initiated 26 January 2015) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brian Williams/Archive 1#RfC (Initiated 3573 days ago on 13 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the section on the Iraq helicopter story include Brian Williams' recounting of the story as he told it on January 30, 2015 on the Nightly News?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- No formal close seems like it's needed. Consensus is clear, it is not really a contentious issue, and has had little participation. Not done Mdann52 (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} to record the consensus. Cunard (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#RfC: Prince Philip's Australian knighthood (Initiated 3588 days ago on 29 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Snoop Dogg#Birth name (Initiated 3585 days ago on 1 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}, in as much as there was anything to do. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Uber (company)#How to cover regulation and other legal responses (Initiated 3594 days ago on 23 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not done No formal close needed - consensus seems clear to the participants, who have got on and implemented this, no need for us to intervene. Mdann52 (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} to record the consensus. Cunard (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Misnomer#Request for Comment (Initiated 3561 days ago on 25 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC) {{Done}} Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rosamund Pike#RfC: Should the lead section state the genre of the films she has appeared in, as set out in a WP:RS? (Initiated 3584 days ago on 2 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Head of state#Image caption RfC (Initiated 3587 days ago on 30 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not done Resolved by the removal of the image in question. Sunrise (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} noting that the image was removed and asking editors to relist the RfC at ANRFC if the image is restored. Cunard (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved admin assess the consensus on this RFD (Initiated 3581 days ago on 5 February 2015)? Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} I can see why that one hung around. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
A week has passed since the last comments. PaleAqua (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Probably not the last we'll hear of that one. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States#Neutrality RfC (Initiated 3585 days ago on 1 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by someone else --slakr\ talk / 03:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Amy Pascal/Archives/2015#RfC: Sony CEO coverage, RS, RECENTISM (Initiated 3580 days ago on 6 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC) {{done}} Guy (Help!) 22:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hydraulic fracturing#Request for comments (Initiated 3593 days ago on 24 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the Hydraulic fracturing article include (A) a discussion of health risks? (B) a discussion of the health reasons for which New York State banned the practice?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon#RfC: Is Billboard magazine a reliable source? (Initiated 3585 days ago on 1 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deathstroke#RfC: Writing about codenames from an out-of-universe perspective (Initiated 3567 days ago on 19 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 54#RfC: Has the CMT been “annihilated” today? (Initiated 3587 days ago on 30 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}. I eagerly await another week of new talk page messages. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#"No quorum" closures (Initiated 3596 days ago on 21 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 03:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed user right: Vandal fighter (Initiated 3596 days ago on 21 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 03:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 0 days' time on 25 November 2024) Free use has been questioned based on the inclusion of certain Apple graphical elements in this screenshot of tcsh and sh running side-by-side on a Mac OSX desktop. Msnicki (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} File deleted by Diannaa. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion has been going on for 10 days, rather than the typical 30 for an RfC, but the same arguments are being repeated over and over by the same small number of editors who still commenting. Since one editor has said he feels that RfC decisions are not binding on him, it might be time for an admin to examine the RfC, which is becoming an unwieldy length. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Thank you for raising this, it needed closing. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 8#Intercollegiate Studies Institute (Initiated 3550 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 9#Plowback retained earnings (Initiated 3549 days ago on 9 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)#Requested move 26 February 2015, a requested move of a popular and featured article? Thanks, StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Cheers, HiDrNick! 13:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Needs any un-involved editor to assess and close. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bhutanese passport#Spoken Wikipedia file (Initiated 3580 days ago on 6 February 2015)? Please the RfC close of Talk:Bhutanese passport#Request for comment (Initiated 14 January 2015) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Rfc: How long should the WikiProject keep track of potential supercentenarians (Initiated 3582 days ago on 4 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Space Station#RfC: Should British English be the primary dialect for the ISS article? (Initiated 3586 days ago on 31 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC) {{Close}} EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 14#Category:Russian Orthodox Christians (Initiated 3634 days ago on 14 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Jc37. SD0001 (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#Category:Jewish Australian sportspeople (Initiated 3626 days ago on 22 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Could an admin please close this discussion of an unusual category as Hafspajen is going spare. Bishonen | talk 10:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC). He's decorating my talkpage with images of despair and melancholy. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC).
- {{Done}} Discussion closed as 'keep' - SD0001 (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Now beset with an edit war over closing due to a contested NAC; could an admin step in please? Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Coffee. SD0001 (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Will an administrator determine the consensus for this request? Discussion is inactive since 4 March. (Initiated 3563 days ago on 23 February 2015) SD0001 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by xaiosflux. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Will an administrator determine the consensus for this request? Discussion is inactive since 4 March. (Initiated 3562 days ago on 24 February 2015) SD0001 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
We need this closed one way or another. A result is needed to determine if the config change request should be made. Cenarium (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Filed in Phabricator, archived, no formal close seems to be needed here. Mdann52 (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Cenarium, the discussion's initiator, would appreciate a close. I think that we should respect his/her wishes. Link to the discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 119#Delete "autochecked" usergroup. I don't know what Phabricator is, but would the closer link to Phabricator in their close? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- It has been filed already by me as Phab:T91934. As I have done this, if someone else wishes to close to support this, they can feel free, although this appears to have already been accepted as consensus, and is waiting for implementation. Mdann52 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's fine if someone else considers there is consensus and makes the phab request. We don't need a formal close, it's just that I didn't want to make the phab request myself since I had initiated the village pump discussion. Cenarium (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not done per above. Thanks for taking initiative on the request, Cenarium. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Done to add a link to the Phabricator request. Cunard (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Cenarium, the discussion's initiator, would appreciate a close. I think that we should respect his/her wishes. Link to the discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 119#Delete "autochecked" usergroup. I don't know what Phabricator is, but would the closer link to Phabricator in their close? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 1#Category:FBI agents convicted of murder (Initiated 3616 days ago on 1 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Ymblanter. Cunard (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 1#Australian politicians (Initiated 3616 days ago on 1 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Done by jc37. Cunard (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Japonic languages#"Altaic ?" in the Infobox? (Initiated 3580 days ago on 6 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} // coldacid (talk|contrib) 17:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Should Wikipedia use HTTPS by default for all readers? (Initiated 3570 days ago on 16 February 2015)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
An admin is requested to close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Should Wikipedia use HTTPS by default for all readers?. Thank you. Tony Tan98 · talk 14:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposed on March 13. The issue has caused a good deal of heat (compare the other subthreads immediately above), so would an uninvolved admin please assess consensus. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC).
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 5#Sean Fagan (Initiated 3553 days ago on 5 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ag-gag#RFC regarding article title (Initiated 3585 days ago on 1 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Does the present article title comply with WP:POVTITLE? If not, what changes are needed?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:TurboTax/Archives/2015#RFC: Should a unproven news report regarding the alleged collection of information be included in the article? (Initiated 3584 days ago on 2 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Azure#RfC: Returning "Azure" to the primary topic rather than a disambiguation page? (Initiated 3585 days ago on 1 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Djokovic–Federer rivalry#RfC: Combined clay results vs Rafael Nadala (Initiated 3584 days ago on 2 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would an uninvolved admin please assess this discussion? Two users seem to start threads every week arguing about each other and it's becoming annoying. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)– Discussion has since been archived. (non-admin closure)
Stuck
- {{done}}. The discussion was archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#Hijiri 88. Cunard (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Consensus seems apparent, but requires formal closure, because the topic is highly contentious, and the outcome of RfCs is disputed every time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by SamuelDay1 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I request closing by an uninvolved admin. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- The "Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret" section has been closed but a subsection remains open. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community authorized discretionary sanctions for Electronic cigarette articles. The closing admin wrote: "I have left the primary thread open for now because I'd like to let the discussion about Discretionary Sanctions run for another day before closing to make sure the community really wants that." Cunard (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alejandro González Iñárritu#RfC: Should the lead paragraph state the genres of Mr.Iñárritu's films, based on WP:RS? (Initiated 3586 days ago on 31 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:British Nigerian#Request for comment on using an Economist article and the IPPR 2013 report as sources (Initiated 3584 days ago on 2 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Morning (Misia album)#RfC: Should the (stylized as... ) parenthesis in lead make clear "in Japanese" (Initiated 3594 days ago on 23 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RfC: to amend the table layout consensus to allow rowspan in year column of filmographies (Initiated 3587 days ago on 30 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Altaic languages#Korean or Koreanic (Initiated 3580 days ago on 6 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia#First Sentence of Education and Language (Initiated 3578 days ago on 8 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Human rights in Northern Cyprus#RfC: Use of the CERD report and language of the article (Initiated 3597 days ago on 20 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This thread was originally listed here. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
We could use an uninvolved editor to gauge the discussion and determine consensus so as to close the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#RfC:_Consensus_on_band_timeline_colour_schemes. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} Alsee (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Can an experienced editor assess the consensus at the above page? With eight responses to the RfC the consensus seems pretty clear (6 keep vs. 2 remove); however several of the responses sort of straddle the fence - especially since the original question posed in the lead was changed - and I am still uncertain what should be done with the relevant section in the article, if anything needs to be done at all. Thanks. Banedon (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
RfC which opened in February and has attracted a lot of opinions, however the RfC period as long passed and discussion has slowed significantly. Request assessment and close. Thanks. (Initiated 3561 days ago on 25 February 2015) Ivanvector (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Abraham Lincoln#habeas corpus section (Initiated 3589 days ago on 28 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Does the current discussion of Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension (Abraham_Lincoln#Beginning_of_the_war) have the right balance of detail? Is it fair? Biased? " Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:War#RfC: Move Economic warfare from grand strategy to weapons (Initiated 3590 days ago on 27 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom#RfC: Infobox (Initiated 3590 days ago on 27 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the infobox read "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" or "Tributary state of Ming Dynasty, Tributary state of Qing Dynasty"? See above sections for background and already-stated arguments; see Talk:Goryeo#RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed? for a similar RfC.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- {{not done}} This has a lot of salient discussion, and nice to see references, but it still seems to be in the "brainstorming" phase. I suggest delisting this one, but leave it open, suggesting they come back here when they're closer to a consensus, or someone flips a coin, or whatever. - jc37 06:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I missed your comment, and was closing it, when I did read it. I undid what I did. AlbinoFerret 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nod. One of the main things to consider when closing an rfc from this page is whether it "needs" to be closed. If the result is "no consensus" due to it being all over the place with multiple suggestions, then delisting and leaving open as a brainstorming session is perfectly fine. Though, sometimes you should close brainstorming sessions. It's part of closer discretion. When I close what seems to me a brainstorming session, I try to give a longer close, summarising the discussion, etc. Anyway, all that aside, thank you very much for your help closing here, it's much appreciated (even if you never hear the appreciation : ) - jc37 15:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- I missed your comment, and was closing it, when I did read it. I undid what I did. AlbinoFerret 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The RFC has been open a month, and the discussion has essentially wound down/ become repetitive. Could an uninvolved editor review and close? Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have a little free time, since its been open a month, Ill take a look. AlbinoFerret 18:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Merger proposal (Initiated 3605 days ago on 12 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Will an administrator assess the consensus at this RFC? It definitely needs an administrator, as the article is protected. Thank you. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor please close this RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Request Speedy Close
- There have been a couple similar proposals and an RfC on galaxy/Galaxy that just closed hours ago. No consensus to change MoS. Now another RfC on the same thing has just opened by user Cinderella157. We haven't even had time to regroup to decide on our next steps when this appears. It was deleted instantly by an editor (not me) but was soon added right back. Please close this speedily. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
{{not done}} Previous close apparently suggested followup discussion/RfCs. And hasn't been 30 days and discussion is still ongoing. - jc37 20:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Requests for XfD or RM closure
CfD
There are currently many open discussions, including some going all the way back to December. Please see the list at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure. - jc37 17:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 11#Category:People by ethnic or national descent (Initiated 3637 days ago on 11 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- This has been outstanding for quite some time now and needs to be closed one way or another. I think the conversation goes much broader then (and away from) my proposition. I think it is probably a good basis to start a wider request for comment to see if we can establish in policy a requirement to give an explicit source when putting an ancestry-type category on an article (perhaps as part of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons?) SFB 19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
{{already done}} by User:Vegaswikian- jc37 20:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#Category:People of French-Canadian descent (Initiated 3624 days ago on 24 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{already done}} by User:Vegaswikian- jc37 20:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Seven discussions still open. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Down to five now. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Now down to three. SD0001 (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
RfD
Not nearly as bad as it has been in recent memory, but here are some leftovers from February:
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 15#U. S. Bank Stadium(Initiated 3579 days ago on 7 February 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 17#Ontario, CA(Initiated 3569 days ago on 17 February 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 18#Legal stone(Initiated 3575 days ago on 11 February 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 18#Secular-progressive(Initiated 3575 days ago on 11 February 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 18#Afro-Asian Bloc(Initiated 3575 days ago on 11 February 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 20#One share, one vote(Initiated 3573 days ago on 13 February 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 25#Anti-whistleblower laws(Initiated 3571 days ago on 15 February 2015)- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 25#Zero (Marvel Comics) (Initiated 3570 days ago on 16 February 2015)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 11#AUKMIN(Initiated 3565 days ago on 21 February 2015)
Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reply - Don't forget Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#February_19 --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- That one is done. Just waiting for Zero (Marvel Comics) now. - jc37 22:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
TfD
Request for closure. --AmritasyaPutraT 11:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
An admin with lots if spare time is needs to close this 150,000+ byte discussion. Its going to take a lot more than a vote count and may need some time to read through. Thanks! (Initiated 3542 days ago on 16 March 2015) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Requested moves
Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes#removable under more stringent standards (Initiated 3591 days ago on 26 January 2015)? Please consider the RfC close of Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes#re-adding clear non-politicians (Initiated 19 July 2012) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
CfD
There are currently many open discussions, including some going all the way back to December. Please see the list at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure. - jc37 17:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 11#Category:People by ethnic or national descent (Initiated 3637 days ago on 11 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- This has been outstanding for quite some time now and needs to be closed one way or another. I think the conversation goes much broader then (and away from) my proposition. I think it is probably a good basis to start a wider request for comment to see if we can establish in policy a requirement to give an explicit source when putting an ancestry-type category on an article (perhaps as part of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons?) SFB 19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
{{already done}} by User:Vegaswikian- jc37 20:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#Category:People of French-Canadian descent (Initiated 3624 days ago on 24 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{already done}} by User:Vegaswikian- jc37 20:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Seven discussions still open. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Down to five now. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Now down to three. SD0001 (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
TfD
Request for closure. --AmritasyaPutraT 11:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
An admin with lots if spare time is needs to close this 150,000+ byte discussion. Its going to take a lot more than a vote count and may need some time to read through. Thanks! (Initiated 3542 days ago on 16 March 2015) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes#removable under more stringent standards (Initiated 3591 days ago on 26 January 2015)? Please consider the RfC close of Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes#re-adding clear non-politicians (Initiated 19 July 2012) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Needs assessment by uninvolved admin. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- PROCEDURAL CLOSE - Discussion has been moved here. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
{{Not done}} - request for close apparently withdrawn. - jc37 20:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 11#Category:People by ethnic or national descent (Initiated 3637 days ago on 11 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- This has been outstanding for quite some time now and needs to be closed one way or another. I think the conversation goes much broader then (and away from) my proposition. I think it is probably a good basis to start a wider request for comment to see if we can establish in policy a requirement to give an explicit source when putting an ancestry-type category on an article (perhaps as part of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons?) SFB 19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
{{already done}} by User:Vegaswikian- jc37 20:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#Category:People of French-Canadian descent (Initiated 3624 days ago on 24 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{already done}} by User:Vegaswikian- jc37 20:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
RfD backlog
Not nearly as bad as it has been in recent memory, but here are some leftovers from February:
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 15#U. S. Bank Stadium(Initiated 3579 days ago on 7 February 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 17#Ontario, CA(Initiated 3569 days ago on 17 February 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 18#Legal stone(Initiated 3575 days ago on 11 February 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 18#Secular-progressive/(Initiated 3575 days ago on 11 February 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 18#Afro-Asian Bloc(Initiated 3575 days ago on 11 February 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 20#One share, one vote(Initiated 3573 days ago on 13 February 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 25#Anti-whistleblower laws(Initiated 3571 days ago on 15 February 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 25#Zero (Marvel Comics)(Initiated 3570 days ago on 16 February 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 11#AUKMIN(Initiated 3565 days ago on 21 February 2015)
Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reply - Don't forget Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#February_19 --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- That one is done. Just waiting for Zero (Marvel Comics) now. - jc37 22:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
{{already done}} - jc37 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
TfD
An admin with lots if spare time is needs to close this 150,000+ byte discussion. Its going to take a lot more than a vote count and may need some time to read through. Thanks! (Initiated 3542 days ago on 16 March 2015) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Requested moves
Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Requests for comment
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes#removable under more stringent standards (Initiated 3591 days ago on 26 January 2015)? Please consider the RfC close of Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes#re-adding clear non-politicians (Initiated 19 July 2012) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 16:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Version 2.0#RfC: Is this revision an improvement to the article? (Initiated 3586 days ago on 31 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 22:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:IHeartRadio Music Festival#Merge proposal (Initiated 3656 days ago on 22 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 22:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Needs assessment by uninvolved admin. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- PROCEDURAL CLOSE - Discussion has been moved here. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
{{Not done}} - request for close apparently withdrawn. - jc37 20:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it was closed. This was reverted. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Turkic dynasties and countries#Golden Horde (Initiated 3583 days ago on 3 February 2015)? See the subsection Talk:List of Turkic dynasties and countries#RfC on disputed listings. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 16:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#RFC to rename article (Initiated 3589 days ago on 28 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt#RFC: Should the "Media Role" content be moved to the "Aftermath" section? (Initiated 3568 days ago on 18 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the "Media Role" content be moved to the "Aftermath" section?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 00:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Precipitationshed#Request for comment (Initiated 3579 days ago on 7 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC) {{Done}} 21:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Possibly the most one-sided RFC ever. Not only does it have no chance of having any effect at all, for legal reasons, it also currently has zero supporters for a change in policy, with even its proposer !voting "Neutral", against an overwhelming consensus for keeping things as they are. Requesting speedy close. -- The Anome (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Request that an experienced editor assess the consensus at this RFC and close the discussion. (Initiated 3549 days ago on 9 March 2015)? Thanks, Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 03:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joseph Kobzon#RFC (Initiated 3574 days ago on 12 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the Joseph Kobzon page mention his entry bans and removal of honorary citizenship, and his comments/activities leading up to that?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 02:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sam Harris (author)#RfC (Initiated 3570 days ago on 16 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the following be in this biography: Theodore Sayeed also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state." http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/sam-harris-uncovered
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 03:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sam Harris (author)#another RfC alas (Initiated 3567 days ago on 19 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Was this edit [2] to this BLP proper?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 18:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elguja Medzmariashvili#RFC deletion (Initiated 3566 days ago on 20 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 18:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bill Cosby#RfC (Initiated 3566 days ago on 20 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Is Bill_Cosby#Sexual_assault_allegations_and_fallout currently of undue weight?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 18:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3555 days ago on 3 March 2015)
Could someone assess consensus and close this one? Thanks. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by User:EurekaLott. Natg 19 (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Requested moves
Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Heather Bresch#Request for Comment (Initiated 3564 days ago on 22 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 21:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:People convicted of murder#RfC (Initiated 3564 days ago on 22 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Should persons who were legally deemed or pardoned as being "wrongfully convicted of murder" be in the category "persons convicted of murder"?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 22:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:American Left#RFC (Initiated 3591 days ago on 26 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
Is Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont, previously U.S. Representative from Vermont, previously mayor of Burlington, Vermont, a notable enough person (as an American socialist politician) to be mentioned in the article American Left in a section entitled "Left candidates running as independents"?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 22:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:American Left#RfC 2 (Initiated 3563 days ago on 23 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
Is
- The American Left consists of individuals and groups that have sought egalitarian changes in the economic, political, and cultural institutions of the United States
a correct and proper definition for the article American Left?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 22:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa#RfC: Membership in Kokuchūkai and reference to it (Initiated 3558 days ago on 28 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 13:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Acharya S#RfC: should the result of previous RFC be restored? (Initiated 3558 days ago on 28 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the result of previous RFC Talk:Acharya_S/Archive_12#Request_for_comment be restored? See above comment User:Rjd0060 "As for which version was protected, I'm sure I protected The Wrong Version. My apologies, but per PPOL and administrative procedures, we typically must stay completely neutral in the case and protect the article in the current state, rather than a preferred state".
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 13:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Acharya S#RfC: should content from Maurice Casey be included in the article? (Initiated 3557 days ago on 1 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 13:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg#RfC: What level of discussion of the plagiarism scandal should be included in Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg? (Initiated 3556 days ago on 2 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 13:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Neo-feudalism#RfC: Is anarcho-capitalism a neo-reactionary idea? (Initiated 3575 days ago on 11 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 13:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:United States#No consensus to revert to out of date, inaccurate 2009 descriptions of 2008 recession (RFC) (Initiated 3557 days ago on 1 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 13:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The previous AfD was closed as "speedy keep" less than 24 hours ago, and it's the same nominator with the same "delete" rationale. I didn't close it myself because I !voted in the previous AfD. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} discussion was closed by Spartaz on April 16. Kraxler (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Requests for comment
This RfC was open for 6 weeks, and saw no activitiy in the last 3 weeks (except a long discussion between me and GregKaye which in my opinion has no direct bearing on the question in the RfC). Can someone neutral please assess whether a consensus was reached and if so - what it is. Thanks, “WarKosign” 20:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Can I please ask any admin involve to note that the RfC started in he context that the content started with an in template title "largest urban areas of Israel. "Urban areas" reverted to "cities" and "of" was changed to "in"? The topic of this RfC also relates to the topic of a parallel RfC located at Talk:List of cities in Israel#RfC best resolution of title and content and I think that it would make sense for both RfCs to be handled together. I also think that it would be of great help if a truly neutral editor who has sufficient interest in the topic area take this on as, IMO, it is a fairly involved topic. GregKaye 21:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Kraxler (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} also the parallel RfC Kraxler (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Project for the New American Century#RfC (Initiated 3560 days ago on 26 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
[3] removes a second quote from a source still being used for the statement: British MP Michael Meacher, made similar allegations in 2003, stating that Rebuilding America's Defences was "a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana," which had been "drawn up for" key members of the Bush administration
The material removed further cites Meacher specifically for
- it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
Was the second quote properly removed as UNDUE or should it remain per NPOV? 21:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:RFC I am offering an alternative statement here since I do not believe the above is an accurate reflection of the question being debated. Alternative statement would be:
Is the lengthy quote necessary, or was it rightly removed as part of a broader effort to reduce the number of block quotes in the article? Is it necessary for Meacher's views on September 11 to be quoted at length in this section, or should his views be summarized/paraphrased (with appropriate citations) instead?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Afro#RfC: Is the information about the Circassian beauties relevant? (Initiated 3566 days ago on 20 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Carmel, Har Hebron#RfC for 2nd picture and two quotes (Initiated 3564 days ago on 22 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 14:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Winged unicorn#Alicorn (Initiated 3563 days ago on 23 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 14:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Morisco#RfC: Should the Expulsion section state as fact that "Moriscos...were overwhelmingly the descendants of...native Iberians"? (Initiated 3558 days ago on 28 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 20:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident#RfC: Should the language of this article be softened? (Initiated 3542 days ago on 16 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 20:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination#Propose widening the topic area of "Racism in ..." articles through moves to "Racism and prejudice in ..." or "Discrimination and racism in" titles (Initiated 3550 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 20:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of cities in Israel#RfC best resolution of title and content (Initiated 3553 days ago on 5 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} as mentioned above Kraxler (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 25#RfC : Is my presentation of the quoted source more relevant to the Ponzi scheme dispute section? (Initiated 3574 days ago on 12 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 3#Rfc Edit specifying 'dinosaur soft tissue, cellular structures, various proteins and evidence of DNA fragments' (Initiated 3573 days ago on 13 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#RFC: Are medical statements such as those from the World Lung Foundation reliable for medical content? (Initiated 3567 days ago on 19 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. That should keep my New Messages bar alight for a few more months. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lloviu virus#RfC (Initiated 3566 days ago on 20 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this article be redirected to Cuevavirus?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Taylor Swift#RfC: Which image for the infobox is best? (Initiated 3544 days ago on 14 March 2015)? The discussion is split between images 1 and 2, so a close by an uninvolved editor would be helpful. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} discussion was closed on April 9 by Winkelvi. Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Reliability vs. bias (Initiated 3576 days ago on 10 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Nihongo#RFC February 9, 2015 (Initiated 3576 days ago on 10 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christian terrorism#RfC (Initiated 3575 days ago on 11 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fire engine#Merge discussion (Initiated 3534 days ago on 24 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} in as much as anything could be done. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Fire engine#Cleaning up the page!!! (Initiated 3550 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} in as much as anything could be done. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Lengthy merge discussion (about 69 bulleted responses, not including threaded discussion) that needs closure. The article that is proposed to be merged was nominated for deletion yesterday. Because of the length of the merge discussion, I am requesting the merge discussion be closed. I have commented in the deletion discussion that I am proposing the merge discussion be closed given how long it is and requesting that the AfD be closed on procedural grounds...the subject is clearly connected to the article, so only a merge should be discussed (not deletion) and the merge discussion is ongoing. AHeneen (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an administrator please deal with this thread? Much obliged. RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} discussion was closed by Bbb23 on April 16 Kraxler (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bob Simon#Christians in the Holy Land (Initiated 3574 days ago on 12 February 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Bob Simon#RfC: Should the controversey over the Christians in the Holy Land story be included in the article?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC) {{done}} Spartaz Humbug! 17:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RFC : How should the DOJ report be summarized. (Initiated 3552 days ago on 6 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 01:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Littleton, Colorado#Request for comment: Historical reference to the 1999 Columbine shootings (Initiated 3545 days ago on 13 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 04:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Einstein Cross#This needs to be renamed to the quaser (Initiated 3550 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)#RfC: Is there enough evidence that the film is set in New York City?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)#RfC: Is there enough evidence that the film is set in New York City? (Initiated 3569 days ago on 17 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 05:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Remember (The Walking Dead)#RFC: Can the plot summary contain a separate/block quote? (Initiated 3554 days ago on 4 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 13:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2015 Copenhagen shootings#Picture should be removed (Initiated 3571 days ago on 15 February 2015)? See the subsection Talk:2015 Copenhagen shootings#Request for comment. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Note, I had closed this RFC, but one of the commentators requested to undo it to allow a conversation to conclude. AlbinoFerret 17:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- In that case, I'm marking it as if it's {{done}} as this does not need to be listed here anymore and should be archived. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Philadelphia Fire Department#Line of duty deaths (Initiated 3548 days ago on 10 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 19:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Proposed changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels (Initiated 3546 days ago on 12 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Army Ranger Wing#Unit size RFC (Initiated 3550 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 19:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy#RfC: Should the lead include accusations of demonstrators? (Initiated 3556 days ago on 2 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hinduism/Archive 30#R f c : Should we revert to a former version? (Initiated 3550 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not needed; already {{done}} by Drmies on 10 March 2015. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Kadampa Tradition#Should the Intro in the Third Paragraph be fixed?? (Initiated 3538 days ago on 20 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{not done}} as it was inappropriate for this to have been brought here on 13 April after the RfC was withdrawn by the initiator on 5 April. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gender variance#Definition: "Males and females" in the lead vs. being ambiguous (Initiated 3566 days ago on 20 February 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Gender variance#RfC: Should "males and females" and/or "masculine and feminine" be used in the lead?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{not done}} RFC tag removed when the involved editors came to an agreement. I did box it to archive it. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Proposal (Initiated 3550 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#RfC - Nested links (Initiated 3544 days ago on 14 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
{{done}} AlbinoFerret 23:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Greek–Turkish relations#RFC: Should this article be re-titled Greece-Turkey relations? (Initiated 3573 days ago on 13 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Closed it. SamuelDay1 (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC) {{done}}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The consensus is overwhelmingly (unanimously) in favor of the suggested limited IBAN between Alansohn and Magnolia677. The subjects themselves have expressed approval, but seem to waver and continue their unfriendly interaction during the discussion. In any case, it seems not a single unintersted party who's read the case opposes the suggestion, and I am basically requesting a snow close by an uninvolved admin to effect the limited IBAN. (This case has come at least one way or another to ANI or ArbCom 21 (!) times.) BTW, I've templated the page, but that doesn't seem to accomplish anything. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- At this point, in addition to the ten or so supports, zero opposes, AND the two disputants, this is settled. The sooner an admin effects the IBAN the better for everyone. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Request for closure. --AmritasyaPutraT 11:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Alakzi. Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Seven discussions need to be closed. Every one of these discussions has been going on for three weeks or more. Paperpencils (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- All complete, I think. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Supersessionism#RFC on pertinence of the land promise to supersession, in Protestant views (Initiated 3548 days ago on 10 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not done RfC was withdrawn. Sunrise (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:William Street (Manhattan)#Lede image dispute (Initiated 3545 days ago on 13 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not done Editors seem to have established consensus independently. Sunrise (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} to record the consensus. Cunard (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
A discussion about the use of infoboxes in articles about classical composers. Open since December 24, it isn't a formal RfC but the consensus is not clear, so I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion has started again, and more !votes were added. This should be removed from this list, not being stale. Kraxler (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus in the following four closely related discussions on the above page:
Nationality: official rules according the FIA International Sporting Code
Thanks in advance, Tvx1 21:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not done Users on that page have agreed to a compromise, and edited the wording accordingly in early April. No RfC was opened, just talk page debate, no need to close anything. No need to take further action. Kraxler (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Seven discussions still open. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Down to five now. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Now down to three. SD0001 (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Down to one. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Still one which is outstanding: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 8#Category:Male professional wrestlers from Jalisco. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} All have been closed now. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Still one which is outstanding: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 8#Category:Male professional wrestlers from Jalisco. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Walter O'Brien#RfC: Founding date of Scorpion Computer Services? (Initiated 3563 days ago on 23 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Census-designated places (Initiated 3573 days ago on 13 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} |done=yes was added, and it was closed on April 15th. Adding this so its obvious it should be archived. AlbinoFerret 13:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
This has been running for more than a month. It could use a close. Please also take into account Talk:Jihadi_John#Requested_move_26_February_2015, it is about the exact same thing and was opened about a week prior.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC) [4]{{Done}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brisbane Roar FC#RfC: What does the F in Brisbane Roar FC stand for? (Initiated 3585 days ago on 1 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin close this, please? Discussion died April 7. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Billy Mackenzie#RfC: Inclusion of a fan sourced playlist of Billy Mackensie's work linked to a second skin music steam system enriches Wikipedia's digital vellum. Please see following discussion / dispute (Initiated 3573 days ago on 13 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done. The question makes the answer obvious... Guy (Help!) 09:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tyson Fury#RfC: How should Fury's nationality be described? (Initiated 3541 days ago on 17 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done Guy (Help!) 09:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization#RfC on Steve Haas' recent article (Initiated 3567 days ago on 19 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done Guy (Help!) 12:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar/Archive 1#Is the António de Oliveira Salazar article seriously out of balance and violating neutral point of view (NPOV) policy? (Initiated 3552 days ago on 6 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not done, not an RfC as such, a normal editorial discussion. No closure required. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden#RfC: Should a cited source include what the article has where the citation appears in its text? (Initiated 3549 days ago on 9 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done Guy (Help!) 11:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 33#RfC: What content should be used in the "Ideologies" section of the ISIL infobox? (Initiated 3544 days ago on 14 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes (Initiated 3555 days ago on 3 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Democratic Party (United States)#RFC re Democratic Party "All of the Above" Energy Policy (Initiated 3558 days ago on 28 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please close this RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please close this RFC, opened on 14 March? It has been inactive for two weeks, and the consensus seems clear. 192.253.251.84 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this RFC? (Initiated 3536 days ago on 22 March 2015) Thanks, - Evad37 [talk] 00:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israel#RfC - what should the lead say about the initial borders of Israel (Initiated 3572 days ago on 14 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} discussion was closed by Guy on April 20. Kraxler (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Try again for "Universe/universe" consensus? (Initiated 3546 days ago on 12 March 2015)? Please consider Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 16#Capitalization of universe - request for comment, closed 4 March 2015, in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be the discussion leading up to the RFC I closed yesterday. AlbinoFerret 23:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Yes, this was a discussion about whether it was appropriate to start a new RfC after a previous RfC ended without consensus. I archived it, the discussion having become moot after the opening, and closure, of the subsequent RfC. Kraxler (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kokuchūkai#RFC: Keep previously referenced sources or remove them (Initiated 3551 days ago on 7 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} The RFC was closed on April 17th by Drmies. AlbinoFerret 05:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Arab Spring#Proposed merge with Arab Winter (Initiated 3553 days ago on 5 March 2015)? Please consider Talk:Arab Winter#Merge to Arab spring (Initiated 12 October 2014) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed it. SamuelDay1 (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:North Bergen, New Jersey#RfC: Should the parent and child category both be added to this article? (Initiated 3570 days ago on 16 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Robot Chicken episodes#Replace with summary, or merge? (Initiated 3576 days ago on 10 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} Closed on April 20th by Spartaz. AlbinoFerret 14:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Institute of Economic Affairs/Archives/2018#RfC: How should the funding section be presented? (Initiated 3543 days ago on 15 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Archived discussion, participants worked it out and did not need a closing. AlbinoFerret 20:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved administrator take a look at this one? It was originally opened on Feburary 19, but was the subject of a deletion review and was overturned as relist on March 19. (Initiated 3539 days ago on 19 March 2015) Natg 19 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done by User:Deryck Chan. Natg 19 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of Scotland#RFC (Initiated 3547 days ago on 11 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Not an RfC but i don't know where else to put this. Looking for a close on this thread. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- As the subject of this incident, I agree that it would be nice to close the thread. Since the thread became very long, I'd like to highlight that the original report pinged every user whom JYTDog felt had problems with my editing. The result ended up being a form of WP:Votestacking although I do not mean to imply that he did this intentionally. Most of the editors who participated were pinged in the original message. Most of the remaining editors who were not pinged had previously interacted with JYTDog in some capacity (both mostly positive but some negatives too).
- I recognize original filing is not without merit. A personal content dispute resulted in a battleground and I take personal responsibility for my actions. JYTDog and Formerly98 were party to the battleground as other participants in the incident report have noted. It would be impossible for this to be the result of a single editor. JYTDog also agreed that this is a personal content dispute is at play. If this incident is closed, I will consciously modify my editing style going forward so that this does not come back to the noticeboards. If JYTDog and Formerly98 do the same, this won't be an issue any longer. Doors22 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Already done thread was closed by Jusdafax on April 28. Kraxler (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Close is currently reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive271#Close review at ANI. Kraxler (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached among editors during the discussion. No need for the RfC to drag on. Four editors have responded to the "Survey", all four agree on the same points. Request an uninvolved editor to close per the consensus the content should be reworded, but will stay in early life section. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- @PBS Consensus has most certainly not been reached. I am the originator of the RFC and it has been a quite controversial RFC to say the least. Please see here:
The user @winkelvi has gone as far as reverting a message to from administrator @PBS on my talk page. I reported this to admin PBS and he warned user winkelvi in the diffs above.
No consensus has been reached, and to date only like 3-5 editors have even comment or voted. I would ask that the RFC be let to run a normal course of time to ensure the maximun number of editors may comment or vote so that we may reach a true consensus, Thank-you. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached, all four editors who have responded to the "Survey" agree unanimously. It defies logic to keep the RfC going and the content from being fixed according to the consensus. There's been no controversy, just typical back and forth via discussion. The "reverting a message to from administrator @PBS" on W17s talk page was merely a mistake/finger tap error on my tablet. I immediately reverted after realizing my error. Not sure why W17 thinks that moment is relevant to this RFC request. I would like to mention, however, that W17 has been warned previously about WP:HOUNDING me by both Drmies and PBS. It seems to me that the only way he would have ended up here is through continued hounding activity and stalking my edits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Many of the statements and baseless allegations made above in the posting by user winkelvi are incorrect. I note that winkelvi continues to rant on and on and on without any diffs, or actual proof of what h/she wants people to think. The picture s/he is attempting to draw is misleading and a misrepresentation of the truth. Also winkelvi is currently forum shopping and admin shopping evidenced by first going to @Drmies, and then @PBS, and the current admin shoppee looks to be @Cool Hand Luke. see here:[11] Winkelvi has been warned by admin @PBS as shown in the diffs above in my earlier posting. This diff that spells it out the best in the Warning made to winkelvi on their talk page by PBS.[12] I am personally sickened by the constant battleground behaviours WP:BATTLEGROUND by user winkelvi that I have outlined above. winkelvi is just continuing to try and stir up drama and trouble, and his doing so is continuing to cause disruption to the encyclopedia. I have reported the numerous disruptions by winkelvi on the talk page of admin PBS that can be read in multiple postings by me on the PBS talk page. see here:[13] sections 71, 78, and 79. I am washing my hands of this entire matter and will have no further comments about the disruptions caused by user winkelvi other than to say he is not showing WP:AGF. He is guilty of WP:HOUNDING me, and has caused repeated disruptions here at wikipedia, and is not here to build an encyclopedia, but is here instead to cause disruption and drama, as is evidenced by a block log which shows multiple blocks, and by his numerous disputes with a series of different editors. winkelvi needs to be told and shown by someone he will actually listen to that Wikipedia is not therapy. WP:THERAPY I am going to just continue with my goal of improving the encyclopedia, improving articles, and working in collaboration with editors here to do the same. Thank you. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done RfC is now closed: consensus is obvious. At some point, I hope that point will come soon, I'll try to look into these allegations but, WordSeventeen, let me just say that your final mission statement is belied somewhat by your comments on this RfC, whose conclusion is quite clear. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Open since 22 March, well into WP:DEADHORSE territory. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would second this. Consensus is clear. SamuelDay1 (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Callanec on 27 April 2015.
Seemingly it is about to be deleted, but any experienced admin may have a look. Hajme 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Plastikspork on 27 April 2015.
Though not a formal RfC, I'm requesting a formal closure here due the potentially controversial nature of the question. NickCT (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} as closed by Coren on 22 April 2015. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Referencing for beginners#RfC: What method first (Initiated 3545 days ago on 13 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Already closed. Spartaz Humbug! 13:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Admins, I needed to stir controversy to prove a point I KNEW was right before I did what I did, and I got stonewalled. Take a look up and see. These people who refused to edit their work and ignored what actually were valid complaints. Please take a look before I invoke someone's wrath once again. We need permission to override this silly excuse for a consensus. Nobody else seems to be willing to give any leeway at all to anyone who isn't one of them in this article. Kind of urgent.
People have been defending this left and right as consensus when it clearly is not.
People may feel like I deceived them but it's only for dishonest reasons.
I know I have to email oversight about other mods but can somebody let me change the title? If this was not constantly stonewalling I don't know what is. NPOV Ninja (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC). |
- Not done. The user who filed this request has since been blocked for disruption, several admins are watching the page, but there is no need at this time for a formal close to anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
One file in here that everyone seems to have forgotten about, and is over a month old. Closure would be appreciated by any admin who knows naything about images and NFCC. (Initiated 3551 days ago on 7 March 2015) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 3 March 2015 (Initiated 3555 days ago on 3 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Spartaz. Number 57 11:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Multi-sport events#Separate Beach volleyball at the 2014 Asian Games (Initiated 3628 days ago on 20 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- DoneClosed Spartaz Humbug! 13:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Splitting up the MfD (Initiated 3564 days ago on 22 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thread was archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 121#Splitting up the MfD without having been closed. Closure still necessary. Kraxler (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done Closed, Spartaz Humbug! 13:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#WP: OUTEX (Initiated 3560 days ago on 26 February 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC: Links related to paid editing. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I second this request, discussion has now completely ceased. Thryduulf (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Roy Moore#Non-notable Play? (Initiated 3572 days ago on 14 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
There's a section called Judge Roy Moore is Coming to Dinner about a play which is a parody of Judge Roy Moore. If it is notable it should probably have it's own page as the play does not feature him at all. However, there's limited WP:SOURCES on this and the play's creator. Seems like WP:FRINGE ...
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done. They should have pinged me earlier! Drmies (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Done by Drmies. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Would someone be able to close this requested move discussion, which has been inactive for two weeks? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done Closed. bd2412 T 17:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3524 days ago on 3 April 2015) Consensus seems pretty clear here a month after filing, and almost that long since the last comment. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done Closed. bd2412 T 17:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3505 days ago on 22 April 2015)
Slightly contentious, as the move goes directly against naming guidelines WP:DEFINITE and WP:THE and would create a major inconsistency (just look at Doctor#Fictional characters and other characters with a noun as name). Consensus seems to lean towards support, but supporters have weak argumentation at best. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done Closed. bd2412 T 17:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Really? This is soo going to review...
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}20:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Really? This is soo going to review...
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Breda O'Brien#RfC (Initiated 3566 days ago on 20 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the lead include the sentence from the body of the article:
- ... and to same-sex marriage, but does not now oppose civil partnership.[6][7]
Or should the lead remain simply:
- O'Brien opposes same-sex marriage.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Done Kraxler (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prometheus (2012 film)#RfC: Multiple announcements for sequel of production progress and release dates for Prometheus 2 (Initiated 3550 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done Guy (Help!) 12:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Would somebody preferably with an understanding of the distinction between secondary and primary sources please assess and close this discussion. The discussion has drawn to a conclusion, but there is an outstanding issue as to whether a film review would count as a primary source or secondary source in regards to the critical opinion contained within (see Erik's comments under "proposal 1"). Betty Logan (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done Guy (Help!) 14:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Requesting closure on Talk:Nazi gun control theory#RfC: Changes proposed in the hat note. (Initiated 3520 days ago on 7 April 2015). —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Done by Guy. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_1#Template:1r, which was relisted over one week ago, and was started in March 2015. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done Looks like this was closed by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 9 May 2015. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yay! My pleasure. Deryck C. 14:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
An admin is requested to close this RfC about whether there should be certain exceptions for the MOS's general prohibition of the use of smallcaps, exceptions to accommodate specific usages and WP:CITEVAR. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Seconding this request for closure. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Mdann52. (Initiated 3570 days ago on 16 February 2015) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please close this RfC? Much thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done (Initiated 3518 days ago on 9 April 2015) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3501 days ago on 26 April 2015)
Pursuant to the discussion currently being held at the Village Pump, if there is determined to be a consensus that another move discussion is permissible with respect to Hillary Rodham Clinton, such a discussion will likely be initiated sometime within the next few weeks. As with the previous effort on this matter, it is requested that a three-admin panel be convened to determine the consensus of the community in this discussion. Such a panel should be composed of three administrators who are experienced in closing RMs, and who are uninvolved with article at issue, and have not previously participated in these discussions. The panel members would be expected to monitor the discussion and enforce civility and protocol, and close it at the end of the allotted discussion period. In light of the last experience, it would also be appreciated if the panel members were to make sure to be available to close the discussion and make a determination of consensus quickly. bd2412 T 04:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- @BD2412: I'm a non-admin who has closed a lot of RM discussions before, so would be happy to volunteer if needed. Mdann52 (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have no objection to an experienced non-admin being on such a panel, if the other two members are admins. bd2412 T 12:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Am happy to volunteer if theres a general view that a three-closer panel is needed. I think the panel idea should be flagged at the RfC, in case this (also) is subject to objection. Not suggesting a !vote on it, just something noting this is the proposed close method. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks - that makes two. I will make a note on the discussion draft. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: The Village Pump discussion has closed with a determination that a new move discussion is permissible. This discussion will be initiated within the next few days at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. bd2412 T 02:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Mdann52 and Euryalus: Update: Discussion has been launched and is now underway at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. Please keep an eye on it. A third uninvolved, experienced RM-closer is still needed for the panel. bd2412 T 18:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm happy to help. I haven't closed a heap of RMs (so if someone else how has is available feel free to take my spot), but I've done a number of discussions, some contentious. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Then we have our panel. So far the discussion, although hard-fought, has basically remained civil and focused. However, additional eyes are always useful. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- BD2412, as an involved editor, I think you should give a little more distance to appearing to sign off on the appointment of the closers. Of course, I am sure they will do an excellent job. Does this discussion preclude another admin from declaring a consensus and closing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- I certainly hope I have been neutral in this task. I was quite specifically asked (in this discussion) to request a three-admin panel, and I believe I have done so dutifully. The exact same thing happened in the last RM - I was asked to request a panel, I requested one just as I requested this one, and the panel that was assembled closed the discussion as they did. In light of that, I am not the least bit worried that I have any undue influence over anyone else (or, really, that anyone listens to me at all). bd2412 T 04:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have zero problems with the manner which bd2412 has asked for a panel to close the RM. Despite the editor irritating the Hell out of me most of the time. :-p Dave Dial (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- I certainly hope I have been neutral in this task. I was quite specifically asked (in this discussion) to request a three-admin panel, and I believe I have done so dutifully. The exact same thing happened in the last RM - I was asked to request a panel, I requested one just as I requested this one, and the panel that was assembled closed the discussion as they did. In light of that, I am not the least bit worried that I have any undue influence over anyone else (or, really, that anyone listens to me at all). bd2412 T 04:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- BD2412, as an involved editor, I think you should give a little more distance to appearing to sign off on the appointment of the closers. Of course, I am sure they will do an excellent job. Does this discussion preclude another admin from declaring a consensus and closing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Then we have our panel. So far the discussion, although hard-fought, has basically remained civil and focused. However, additional eyes are always useful. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm happy to help. I haven't closed a heap of RMs (so if someone else how has is available feel free to take my spot), but I've done a number of discussions, some contentious. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Am happy to volunteer if theres a general view that a three-closer panel is needed. I think the panel idea should be flagged at the RfC, in case this (also) is subject to objection. Not suggesting a !vote on it, just something noting this is the proposed close method. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have no objection to an experienced non-admin being on such a panel, if the other two members are admins. bd2412 T 12:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Suggestion It occured to me that it might be beneficial for the members of the closing panel not to be from the same national/regional/cultural background i.e. not all from the U.S. and not all from other countries. I would think, in reflection on List of countries by English-speaking population, that a potentially neutral mix would be to have one admin from the U.S. and two from other locations. Its just a suggestion. GregKaye 18:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)]]
- The BLP is about an important American figure - not clear to me how two non-Americans is more neutral than two Americans. Tvoz/talk 07:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- A note to potential closers – In order for this closure to be accepted, it must meet the standard set by the last closure, which was quite high in terms of thoroughness. I'd ask that the closers take a look at the research done by closer TParis. Such research is representative of the standard that must be met in the closure of this current request. RGloucester — ☎ 03:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- RGloucester, I don't argue that it would be good for closure to be enacted to a high standard but, when you say "
In order for this closure to be accepted
", accepted by who? The last RM went through the process that you mentioned and still came to a decision that was widely questioned and which went to MR. GregKaye 18:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- RGloucester, I don't argue that it would be good for closure to be enacted to a high standard but, when you say "
- Suggestion As was requested and fulfilled the last time, it would be a good idea to again have the closing panel not be all male. Tvoz/talk 07:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Seconded. I would even further suggest two out of the three members of the panel should be female, ideally. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Tvoz/talk 00:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Do we know anything about the gender of the volunteers so far? We could ask. bd2412 T 14:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Based on their various infoboxes (past and present), it appears as though at least two are also Australian? (I don't think there's some grand conspiracy by the Aussies, perhaps just the time that the "request for volunteers" was posted meant Australians were more likely to be editing.) Given that it has been asserted in the discussion that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is more prevalent in North America than elsewhere in the world, given the spirit of wp:ties, and given wp:bias, a majority-male (or, possibly, all male), majority-Australian group of closers is interesting. Justen (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- BD2412 re gender, I have compiled information that has been visibly available at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request#Survey of participant's gender (by biology or specified preference) and residency/nationality as presented in user page content in reference to !votes. I don't know if other editors have added content themselves but I think that so far it seems to me there is an even split between female and male, supporters and opposers. GregKaye 11:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have no objection to having a mixed-gender panel at all. If a female admin (or two) wishes to volunteer to participate in the closing panel, they can work out with the three (apparently male) volunteers above what the final composition of a closing panel will be. bd2412 T 18:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Re geographical composition, I also think it does not make sense for the majority of closers being non-American, with no criticism of Australians or the volunteers to be inferred. I agree with Justen's comment above on this, but would take it beyond it being interesting, and say it would be preferable for the makeup of the closers to be more Americans (and fewer males). Tvoz/talk 00:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have no objection to having a mixed-gender panel at all. If a female admin (or two) wishes to volunteer to participate in the closing panel, they can work out with the three (apparently male) volunteers above what the final composition of a closing panel will be. bd2412 T 18:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- BD2412 re gender, I have compiled information that has been visibly available at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request#Survey of participant's gender (by biology or specified preference) and residency/nationality as presented in user page content in reference to !votes. I don't know if other editors have added content themselves but I think that so far it seems to me there is an even split between female and male, supporters and opposers. GregKaye 11:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Based on their various infoboxes (past and present), it appears as though at least two are also Australian? (I don't think there's some grand conspiracy by the Aussies, perhaps just the time that the "request for volunteers" was posted meant Australians were more likely to be editing.) Given that it has been asserted in the discussion that "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is more prevalent in North America than elsewhere in the world, given the spirit of wp:ties, and given wp:bias, a majority-male (or, possibly, all male), majority-Australian group of closers is interesting. Justen (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Seconded. I would even further suggest two out of the three members of the panel should be female, ideally. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Re Gender makeup of closers - Doesn't matter. All female. All male. Mixed. Who cares? We just need people who can read an apply policy. Re Nationality of closers - Doesn't matter. All American. All international. Mixed. Who cares? We just need people who can read an apply policy. Can we quit quibbling here and just move on? NickCT (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- I strongly reject the idea that sex discriminatory criteria should be involved in establishing the panel. Such criteria in establishing is as wrong as using race as a criteria. As for nationality, I don't understand why being an American should be a criteria. We should be looking for three competent Wikipedia editors, even if they end up being three Siberian hermaphrodites. SMP0328. (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- It matters. It matters because it was actually asserted in the discussion that most newspapers outside of North America refer to her as "Hillary Clinton," while most in North America refer to her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" on first reference. It matters since our policy and style certainly lean towards respecting the norms local to a given subject in English-speaking countries. And it matters because, although I'm male, I wouldn't presume that a group of male editors similar to myself would be able to bring the same diversity of perspective as a group of female editors could bring — especially when it comes to a wp:blp subject choosing to maintain her maiden name as a core part of her identity and a contingent of the Wikipedia editorial community saying her decision doesn't really matter. And, certainly, we should strive for more ethnic and gender diversity in all of our editing community. But pretending it doesn't matter ignores the reality of systemic bias. Justen (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Whether it matters or not, the point seems to be moot. A request was made for a neutral panel, and three editors volunteered. The question of gender/geographic diversity was not raised until the discussion was in the backlog; it was noted at that time that female admins would be welcome to volunteer to serve on the panel (which would displace one or more of the presumably male panel members). However, no one else has stepped forward, and the panel is now in the process of deliberating the close. bd2412 T 04:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- It matters. It matters because it was actually asserted in the discussion that most newspapers outside of North America refer to her as "Hillary Clinton," while most in North America refer to her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" on first reference. It matters since our policy and style certainly lean towards respecting the norms local to a given subject in English-speaking countries. And it matters because, although I'm male, I wouldn't presume that a group of male editors similar to myself would be able to bring the same diversity of perspective as a group of female editors could bring — especially when it comes to a wp:blp subject choosing to maintain her maiden name as a core part of her identity and a contingent of the Wikipedia editorial community saying her decision doesn't really matter. And, certainly, we should strive for more ethnic and gender diversity in all of our editing community. But pretending it doesn't matter ignores the reality of systemic bias. Justen (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
There haven't been any new comments on this RfC for ages. It needs a close. RGloucester — ☎ 03:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done Closed. Go Phightins! 02:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm requesting that an administrator review and close this. A previous iteration was closed by a non-admin. I won't say anything else since I am an involved party. (Warning: It's a lengthy discussion.) Pax 20:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Thread is now in ANI Archive 884. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 17:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not done No formal closure required. The thread was archived, due to inactivity. The original poster was blocked. The article where the disagreement happened was deleted after an AfD discussion. Move on, folks. Kraxler (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There haven't been any new comments for a while. Consensus seems unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.168 (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Already done Closed by Guy on May 15. Kraxler (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Requesting closure on Talk:Korean_American#Requested_move_11_March_2015. (Initiated 3547 days ago on 11 March 2015). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done Mdann52 (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy#Requesting permission to restore User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy to mainspace - another round of AfD (Initiated 3543 days ago on 15 March 2015)? Please note that the discussion is also transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 31. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Just a sidenote, I believe BusterD assessed the situation that Coffee had opened this as a RfC acting in the capacity of an AfD, so there question becomes whether there was ever consensus to delete the subject. If the outcome does favor me, I still have a few more updates regarding title changes to fix. I feel at worst the contents of the article should allow another round of AfD at worst. Valoem talk contrib 02:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, this deletion was endorsed at DRV and you opened this ridiculous RFC to try get round this. Any admin closing this as nc defaults to retain the material will be at DRV so fast their head will spin. Spartaz Humbug! 13:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Technically, this article has never been deleted by prod, AfD or CSD. The 1st Afd was a clear keep, 2nd AfD closed as merge, but editors at the merge target wouldn't allow inclusion. Such a DRV, not being AfD round 2, cannot endorse a deletion never so closed. Instead previous closer User:Coffee by own admission first listed this at RFC but also later transcluded at AFD (and even relisted twice, though I can't find it in the logs for those dates), not DRV. I would concur with other editors in this thread that closure is past due. Like User:Aquillion below, I'd prefer the closer thoroughly read the discussion on the page, and not read out-of-context arguments from this thread. BusterD (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Incorrect there was plenty of support from administrators in this matter to view the RfC in this capacity, what you have done is essentially attempt enforce a close your favor. We should not operate like this. By the way there is a strong policy based consensus why this should be retained. Valoem talk contrib 01:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously, I've commented there (and I won't rehash all the reasons I think you're wrong about there being reasons to retain it), but as far as the appropriate forum to discuss it goes, I'll say basically the same thing: Administrators can't arbitrarily choose to go around AFD and DRV, at least not without giving a decent reason; and nobody involved in this has even given a particularly good rationale why it shouldn't just go to DRV (beyond your own desire to have a failure to reach consensus default to "restore", which is not a very good reason.) Obviously an article that was removed under a legitimate AFD (and then a went through a legitimate DRV that decided against restoration) cannot be restored based solely on a failure to reach consensus in a RFC on your talk page; if you want to argue that the AFD was not legitimate, you are perfectly aware that the appropriate place to take that is DRV (as I recall, you did take it there, once before, and it failed decisively.) More generally, it is just common sense that a RfC that fails to reach consensus has no effect, which means the article remains deleted per the previous AFD and DRV results; again, if you want to appeal those, you know the appropriate venue (and regardless of venue, you would at least have to reach a clear consensus to restore!) --Aquillion (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Closers typically have some discretion as it regards their own closes. In this case, the closer chose to go along with Valoem and list at RFC and then transclude at AFD. If Coffee had wanted this at DRV, as closer that editor certainly could have taken it there. Coffee didn't. BusterD (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Administrative close only, Mdann52 close was completely improper given the long history of this article. He also failed to determine that WP:MEDRS is improper rational for no to restoration it was already debated this cannot be applied as this is a social condition not medical one. Valoem talk contrib 14:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Closers typically have some discretion as it regards their own closes. In this case, the closer chose to go along with Valoem and list at RFC and then transclude at AFD. If Coffee had wanted this at DRV, as closer that editor certainly could have taken it there. Coffee didn't. BusterD (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously, I've commented there (and I won't rehash all the reasons I think you're wrong about there being reasons to retain it), but as far as the appropriate forum to discuss it goes, I'll say basically the same thing: Administrators can't arbitrarily choose to go around AFD and DRV, at least not without giving a decent reason; and nobody involved in this has even given a particularly good rationale why it shouldn't just go to DRV (beyond your own desire to have a failure to reach consensus default to "restore", which is not a very good reason.) Obviously an article that was removed under a legitimate AFD (and then a went through a legitimate DRV that decided against restoration) cannot be restored based solely on a failure to reach consensus in a RFC on your talk page; if you want to argue that the AFD was not legitimate, you are perfectly aware that the appropriate place to take that is DRV (as I recall, you did take it there, once before, and it failed decisively.) More generally, it is just common sense that a RfC that fails to reach consensus has no effect, which means the article remains deleted per the previous AFD and DRV results; again, if you want to appeal those, you know the appropriate venue (and regardless of venue, you would at least have to reach a clear consensus to restore!) --Aquillion (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I closed as no one else was likely to close. As for the MEDRS point, it was only mentioned as other editors said it is a good idea - I have already addressed this on my talk page. If you have an issue about the close, I'm sure you are aware where to appeal it, although this will likely rumble on forever if you do. Mdann52 (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would rather appeal an admin closure in contentious debates. Valoem talk contrib 15:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wanting an admin to close this is, to be perfectly fair, not a legitimate reason to overturn a discussion, per Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review. I understand your point, however this has been sat here for over 2 weeks waiting for an admin close, so I decided to close it as a courtesy to prevent this dragging on for far too long. Mdann52 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've already made a request, you are suppose to revert NAC RfCs if requested, just so you know. Valoem talk contrib 15:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Can you point me to that policy please? Most of the rules at WP:NAC cover non-admin closes only. As far as I know, this is not policy, and has certainly not been upheld before. Mdann52 (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- It says NACs are done when the outcome is fairly obvious, does it look like it applies in this situation? Valoem talk contrib 15:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- The issue here is that there is a gap between policy as written and as applied. From my work here, I understand that non-admin closures can be done in cases like this, when no admin tools are needed, rational is clearly explained etc. I'll propose shortly that the wording is clarified. Mdann52 (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- It says NACs are done when the outcome is fairly obvious, does it look like it applies in this situation? Valoem talk contrib 15:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Can you point me to that policy please? Most of the rules at WP:NAC cover non-admin closes only. As far as I know, this is not policy, and has certainly not been upheld before. Mdann52 (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've already made a request, you are suppose to revert NAC RfCs if requested, just so you know. Valoem talk contrib 15:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wanting an admin to close this is, to be perfectly fair, not a legitimate reason to overturn a discussion, per Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review. I understand your point, however this has been sat here for over 2 weeks waiting for an admin close, so I decided to close it as a courtesy to prevent this dragging on for far too long. Mdann52 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Done Mdann52 (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Talk:2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers#Enough_of_this_nonsense._RfC_for_.22occupied.22
RfC has run the full 30 days (actually 40). Can someone close this? I think the consensus is relatively clear, but I would like an uninvolved editor to have a close the RfC in this contentious area. Any reasonably experienced uninvolved editor will do. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3495 days ago on 2 May 2015)
- Overwhelming support to move. Closing admin will have to judge which target to choose; three possible names (2015 Baltimore unrest, 2015 Baltimore civil unrest, and 2015 Baltimore protests) have all been put forth. Leave it to closing admin to decide which. It's been 10 days, and the crowd is getting a bit restless for action. --Jayron32 01:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Closed by Salvidrim! Mdann52 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
An admin will be needed soonish to close the above. It's about the close of an AN/I topic-ban discussion related to biomedical articles. Several editors disagreed with the closer's interpretation of consensus, so whoever closes this should ideally have no involvement with biomedical issues, alternative medicine or animal health. Many thanks, Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Seems Already done by admin Adjwilley ― Padenton|✉ 21:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The caller of the RFC (which they say is part 1 of a 2-part RFC) states they have no position on [the] issue. SlimVirgin, Coretheapple and I say the RfC is disruptive. (Location says it's not neutrally worded too.) I'm here to urge an early close on that basis. The RfC conflates CoI, FCoI and PAE. --Elvey(t•c) 01:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done Closed. Kraxler (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
This RfC was opened by an inexperienced editor who was seeking advice on how best to link to episode articles. The question refers to a specific article and the outcome cannot affect MOS:TV so the RfC is moot. In any case, the editor has now received advice and seems happy to close the RfC.[14] --AussieLegend (✉) 06:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- AussieLegend, could you say what is the current usage recommended by MOS:TV on this point? It would help to formulate a closing statement, although it was not mentioned by anybody in the RfC. Kraxler (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- The MOS doesn't specify as it's not something that is going to be consistent. Like most of what we add to Wikipedia the solution depends on individual circumstances and is left to editorial judgement. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done Closed. Kraxler (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- The MOS doesn't specify as it's not something that is going to be consistent. Like most of what we add to Wikipedia the solution depends on individual circumstances and is left to editorial judgement. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- AussieLegend, could you say what is the current usage recommended by MOS:TV on this point? It would help to formulate a closing statement, although it was not mentioned by anybody in the RfC. Kraxler (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
This has been open 7 days, it was opened 14 May 2015, and looks like a possible WP:SNOW. Real discussion has stopped a few days ago and a few !votes have trickled in since then, but its pretty clear the direction this is heading. At this point we have those that are against the essay rehashing the same arguments. AlbinoFerret 14:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by The Herald AlbinoFerret 20:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This Incident Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki was archived without being officially closed or any action taken. Could someone review it and officially close it or take appropriate action. Thank you for your time. Itsmeront (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3486 days ago on 11 May 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I have unarchived this thread. It can now be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate Actions and behavors by Editors Padenton and Msnicki. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Atsme. Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Can an experienced editor summarize the consensus at the above link? A simple count does not yield a clear result. Thanks! Banedon (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. --GRuban (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Both discussions were started over a month ago. I'd like to get an uninvolved closer. Note: both discussions were continued over at NPOVN, but discussion there has been inactive for over 10 days. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Shaygan Kheradpir#Lead (Initiated 3540 days ago on 18 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deaths in 2015#RfC: Mention some titles? (Initiated 3540 days ago on 18 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Simon Collins#RFC regarding a passage (Initiated 3503 days ago on 24 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Archived discussion since support was unanimous. AlbinoFerret 21:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oldest people#Time Zones RFC (Initiated 3524 days ago on 3 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chris Claremont#RFC for picture change (Initiated 3512 days ago on 15 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nature's Harmony Farm#Identity of founder, owner and operator (Initiated 3510 days ago on 17 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brown rice#RFC regarding Arsenic section (Initiated 3510 days ago on 17 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sailor Moon#RfC: Is it relevant to include LGBT as a main theme? (Initiated 3520 days ago on 7 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Faith healing/Archive 2#Classification of Faith Healing (Initiated 3504 days ago on 23 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{already done}} Closed by JzG ― Padenton|✉ 19:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rape statistics#RfC: We should mention this unreported rape statistic? (Initiated 3527 days ago on 31 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{already done}} Closed by JzG ― Padenton|✉ 19:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC:Should all claims have a citation? (Initiated 3509 days ago on 18 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt#Merger proposal (Initiated 3545 days ago on 13 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} though frankly it didn't need closing, the proposal was abandoned by initiator. --GRuban (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#RfC: ancient religions and the myth of NPOV (Initiated 3542 days ago on 16 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Palestinian stone-throwing#RfC Should the article be renamed to something like 'Stone throwing in the Palestinian territories'/'Stone-throwing in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict'? to comply with NPOV? (Initiated 3532 days ago on 26 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Horse theft#Request for comment (Initiated 3508 days ago on 19 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Proposed merger of attacks articles (Initiated 3527 days ago on 31 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Part of the comments of a RFC that happened on the other article to be merged. Nothing to do, that one was already closed.AlbinoFerret 22:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Operation Dragoon Ride#RFC - Ill-Mannered Protestors Outnumbered by Cheering Throngs Chanting "America!" ... is U.S. Government a RS for this claim? (Initiated 3519 days ago on 8 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hapa#RfC: Should we use the Oxford English Dictionary definition for "hapa"? (Initiated 3512 days ago on 15 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:E-meter#RfC: Should the Corydon book be used to say that Hubbard's patent was based on the work of Breeding and Wallis? (Initiated 3534 days ago on 24 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bond girl#RfC: The criterion for what constitutes a Bond girl (Initiated 3537 days ago on 21 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#RfC:"Defcon" and "DEFCON", and the meaning of 1-5 (Initiated 3535 days ago on 23 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Afc decline#RFC: Stop adding User Talk pages to "Category:AfC submissions declined as..."? (Initiated 3541 days ago on 17 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stephen Cambone#RfC on " contributor to the PNAC report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" in a BLP (Initiated 3542 days ago on 16 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by JzG (talk · contribs) --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Joel Osteen#Category:Prosperity theologians (Initiated 3539 days ago on 19 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Guy (Help!) 13:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Disambiguations of divinities (Initiated 3544 days ago on 14 March 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Extension to RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RFC: Can originators dictate the scope of RFCs? (Initiated 3502 days ago on 25 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Guy (Help!) 14:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Ready for closure, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3491 days ago on 6 May 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Guy (Help!) 13:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genocides in history#RfC: Inclusion criteria (Initiated 3510 days ago on 17 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Higgs boson#RfC: Was the rejection of section "Certification of the new particle as a Higgs boson" justified? (Initiated 3534 days ago on 24 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Modesto, California#RFC regarding lead photo (Initiated 3517 days ago on 10 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:AC/DC#RfC: AC/DC's Current Drummer (Initiated 3505 days ago on 22 April 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Is the current drummer of AC/DC Phil Rudd or Chris Slade?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
RfC has run for 30 days. Note that there are two parts to this RfC, the disclaimer and the JavaScript. Consensus about the disclaimer seems pretty clear, but people might disagree about the clarity of the consensus related to the JavaScript. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3515 days ago on 12 April 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been open for almost a month now. Could someone please close it already? The article is WP:Move protected, making WP:Non-admin closure impossible. (Initiated 3500 days ago on 27 April 2015) Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} – EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
An RfC and a survey was opened following inconsistency and edit-war for place in the collage at infobox top. After long discussion a list of 30 people and a resulting collage image was made. This process started on March 31. A total of 122 nominations were made, 29 editors voted, 14 editors discussed, 2 filter systems were discussed and merged, 11 editors have agreed to ratify it, 3 editors complained, 1 editor remained apprehensive. This is time for closing this long discussion. An non-involved admin would be the right person to do it. –nafSadh did say 06:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3527 days ago on 31 March 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please close this merge request? PaleAqua (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3538 days ago on 20 March 2015) (This was when the section was created, but it has since been renamed.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}} - closed as No consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Advanced capitalism#Redirect to Capitalism section? (Initiated 3534 days ago on 24 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} – closed with a result of keep. --IJBall (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cerne Abbas Giant#RfC: Does WP:MOSUNIT not apply to this article? (Initiated 3528 days ago on 30 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Cold War II#Add "Terminology" section? (Initiated 3497 days ago on 30 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Malta#Which map should we use in main infobox? (Initiated 3495 days ago on 2 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cyclone Pam#RfC: Extreme Weather (Initiated 3543 days ago on 15 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Broke with Expensive Taste#RfC: Should the ratings template repeat a score discussed in prose? (Initiated 3517 days ago on 10 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}} - closed as No consensus with 4 evenly split participants. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jimi Hendrix#RfC: Adding acid rock as a genre in the article's infobox (Initiated 3517 days ago on 10 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jimi Hendrix#Death of Jimi Hendrix article merge (Initiated 3506 days ago on 21 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} – closed with a result of not merged. --IJBall (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music#RFC re Paul Whiteman (Initiated 3505 days ago on 22 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Esquivalience. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Barelvi#RfC: Should the definition of Intercession be included? (Initiated 3524 days ago on 3 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 51#RfC: putting more emphasis on description in WP:CONCISE and across WP:AT (Initiated 3534 days ago on 24 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. --GRuban (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Easy Living (1949 film)#Hatnotes (or the equivalents) (Initiated 3527 days ago on 31 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule (Initiated 3565 days ago on 21 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiBullying#Recent changes to the essay (Initiated 3537 days ago on 21 March 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:WikiBullying#WP:RfC: Should the page be changed back to its previous version, partially or wholly? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Siege of Kobanî#RfC: Icons used in prose (Initiated 3508 days ago on 19 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} – closed as Keep flag icons, as per WP:WORDPRECEDENCE. --IJBall (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Proposal for a "wait" tag (Initiated 3520 days ago on 7 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - closed as unsuccessful. Esquivalience t 21:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Freenode#RfC: Template modification (Initiated 3521 days ago on 6 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} - however it was not archived, I archived it. Esquivalience t 22:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor deliver the baby assess the consensus at Talk:Fox_News_Channel#RfC - Should the lead paragraph about disputed bias refer to the accusers as "many observers" or "some observers"?
(Initiated 3756 days ago on 14 August 2014) This RFC has been templated and open for 9 1/2 months! It fell through the cracks either because the RFC template used was a redirect to the actual RFC template, or perhaps because the RFC maintenance software was confused by a fictional year-2252 comment date.
Micro summary: RfC asked about usage of "some" vs "many" in the lede. Late in the process some editors came up with an alternate well sourced wording. That alternate appears to have been stable for the last 7 months. Perhaps close it as stale? Or maybe an obvious No Consensus on the "some vs many", and some non-binding comment that the article now has a stable alternate wording? Alsee (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} – Close by Guy as moot (i.e.
Stale ). --IJBall (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions (Initiated 3520 days ago on 7 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: Should the USSTATION convention be rolled back?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: Should the USSTATION convention be rolled back? (Initiated 3512 days ago on 15 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: Should the USSTATION capitalization advice be adhered to, using reliable sources for what is an official station name? (Initiated 3512 days ago on 15 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)