Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 19
 | 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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
CfD backlog
There are currently many open discussions, including some from early April. Please see the list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure.
Thanks to those who have closed the oldest ones from January to March in recent weeks. – Fayenatic London 08:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's a nearly a month after the previous message and the backlog has only increased in the past month. Please help!! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Another few weeks and April is at least cleared. The May backlog has piled up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- {{Resolved mark}} (for the time being). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Another few weeks and April is at least cleared. The May backlog has piled up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
"Period in country" category discussions
There are currently more than 20 open discussions about categories that are (roughly) of the form "Period in country", these discussions are listed here. Could an experienced administrator have a look at these discussions? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Assessment is needed. --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Request that an uninvolved individual close this discussion, which seems to have run its course. Issue is complicated by accusations that it was improperly raised. 00:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} The RFC was moved to an archive here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_126#RfC:_Should_Template:English_variant_notice_be_deprecated.3F it has been closed now. AlbinoFerret 06:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3405 days ago on 31 July 2015)
- Discussion has been and remains quite nasty. The RfC has potentially serious consequences for the article, but it has been open for long enough and has had enough participants that a consensus should be clear.
Admin close preferred because there is a real danger that participants would revert an NAC.From the reaction to Darkfrog24's intervention I would conclude that there is no danger of an NAC being reverted. Scolaire (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC). Edited 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC) - {{Done}} Francis Schonken (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Procedural closure due to ongoing existing request at Talk:State of Palestine#Requested move 5 August 2015 which involves the same move request. Should be resubmitted after that request has been concluded. Rob984 (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Done by Jenks24. Rob984 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3405 days ago on 31 July 2015) Alakzi (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please assess Talk:Eliot Higgins#RfC: Is MIT Professor and former UN weapons inspector's opinion on Higgins' weapons analysis admissible? There has been no further debate for 9 days and the editors appear unable to reach an agreement. (Initiated 3416 days ago on 20 July 2015)? Thanks, Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- RfCs usually run for 30 days, for outside editors to weigh in, not just regulars to the page. So, wait a bit and hope others will see the RfC and respond. As a matter of fact, I will add my opinion sometime today. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The requester seems to have listed the date they requested closure as initiated date instead of the date the discussion started. I've fixed it. Tvx1 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
RfD backlog
I'd like to request a close on the following RfDs. There are more, but I'm limiting this list to those initiated in July. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 18#The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won, If We Allow Our Culture to Be Shaped by Mimicry, Whether from Lack of Ideas or from Exaggerated Respect. You Should Never Try to Freeze Culture. – (Initiated 3424 days ago on 12 July 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 30#Acidobacterium – (Initiated 3423 days ago on 13 July 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 24#List of Pokemon Orange Islands Gym Leaders – (Initiated 3422 days ago on 14 July 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 24#Richard Parker (footballer) – (Initiated 3421 days ago on 15 July 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 18#Stage Races – (Initiated 3419 days ago on 17 July 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31#Summary of trojan war – (Initiated 3414 days ago on 22 July 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 1#Northeastern Australia – (Initiated 3412 days ago on 24 July 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11#Template:Rfs – (Initiated 3408 days ago on 28 July 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 28#Template:1stpartysources – (Initiated 3408 days ago on 28 July 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11#Pokémon locations (Kanto) – (Initiated 3408 days ago on 28 July 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31#Turkishmenistan – (Initiated 3405 days ago on 31 July 2015)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31#Male issue – (Initiated 3405 days ago on 31 July 2015)
- {{done}} by various people. Jenks24 (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
AfD Requests
First of all, apologies if this is not the correct venue, but it seems to be the most logical place to request this. The 2015 Arras attack article was nominated for deletion yesterday in good faith. I have no issue with said nomination, or the nominator for doing so. It was also listed at WP:ITN/C yesterday. Obviously, a current AfD discussion precludes an appearance on ITN. The significance of the event has become more apparent overnight. The article has been improved and updated. Consensus seems to have formed that the article should be kept, although this is not unanimous (Disclosure, I !voted "keep"). Therefore, I hereby request that the nomination be closed as keep, without prejudice to a renomination on or after 1 September. Such a closure would allow the article to appear at ITN should sufficient consensus be gained for it to do so. If there is a failure to appear at ITN, this request should not be seen as an attempt to subvert the AfD process, but more in the spirit of WP:IAR as an attempt to remove a perceived barrier to the article appearing at ITN. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} ages ago. Who normally archives this page? Are they away? Jenks24 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Administrative
Would anybody close this RfC? The proposer has signaled here that he is no longer interested in discussing this. Thanks. Kraxler (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3400 days ago on 5 August 2015)
(Initiated 3395 days ago on 10 August 2015) Discussion's pretty much dead, save for some remarks here and there, and it is clear that the general consensus is "Support inclusion." ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, but next time, @Electricburst1996: don't include any information in your notice that could even make it appear non-neutral. Let the closer see for him or herself whether the consensus is clear or not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Competence and civility issues with Koala15 (Initiated 3424 days ago on 12 July 2015)? A close is requested in the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Closure requested .... Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Would anyone like to take a shot at closing Talk:Revision control#Requested move 13 July 2015? It's been open for over a month now. Some level of knowledge about computer science/software(?) might be useful. Jenks24 (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Anybody? Jenks24 (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Requests for comment
Would an uninvolved admin please close this. Its rather long. AlbinoFerret 17:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please, some admin close this, its to the point that there is rehash and rehash going on with nothing new in days. Its already past the 7 days most sections on WP:AN/I are closed by. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 01:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895#Ideloctober refuses to read or learn about Wikipedia Policy over on the Frankfurt School talk page. (Initiated 3398 days ago on 7 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Jobrot. Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 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)
- Update: situation is much improved, but there's still a six-week backlog of move requests. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
As of late July 2015, the backlog is still about one month (and some of the ones in the backlog should actually be easy closes; others?... not so much). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Requests for comment
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky#Massacre at Batoh section added (Initiated 3494 days ago on 3 May 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky#RfC: Should battle/massacre at Batoh be mentioned in the article on Khmelnytsky?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac/Archive 1#RfC: Article title (Initiated 3409 days ago on 27 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rubin Carter#RFC: lead sentence (Initiated 3400 days ago on 5 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose#money/pot RFC (Initiated 3399 days ago on 6 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Corvette leaf spring#RfC: Should this page remain or be merged away? (Initiated 3408 days ago on 28 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pakistan/Archive 18#RfC the images issue (Initiated 3411 days ago on 25 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin please assess the state of consensus in this discussion and close if appropriate (Initiated 3400 days ago on 5 August 2015)? There have been no new substantive contributions for some time, and so the discussion seems to have reached a natural end-point. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3410 days ago on 26 July 2015)
No discussion in over a month. Template creator attempted closure on 23 August. A non-admin closure was reverted today in favour of uninvolved admin closure today.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant (restored) (Initiated 3389 days ago on 16 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}--by Mdann52. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dictatorship of the proletariat#RFC: Which of two versions of lede and Proletarian Government? (Initiated 3410 days ago on 26 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ragnvald Knaphövde#Caption makes image relevant (Initiated 3411 days ago on 25 July 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Ragnvald Knaphövde#RfC: Must every image be historically accurate?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971#RFC, Should "Decisive victory of Provisional Banlgladesh Government" be written in result? (Initiated 3408 days ago on 28 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Melbourne#RFC: Montage of images of Melbourne (Initiated 3405 days ago on 31 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of kings of Persia#Should this list include only monarchs or dynasties which are stated by multiple academic sources to be Persian? (Initiated 3404 days ago on 1 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Removal of wikipedia:persondata by bot: the RfC ran for 30 days, not sure what can be concluded at the end of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3461 days ago on 5 June 2015)
- {{Already done}} On September 7th. See Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_64#RfC:_Remove_persondata_practical_steps. That should clear the top of this terrible leaderboard. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Irataba#text inserted by User:♥Golf removed (Initiated 3402 days ago on 3 August 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Irataba#RfC: Should the text inserted by Golf be included?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Blue Army (Poland)#RfC: Should these two statements linking Jews and Bolsheviks appear in Blue Army (Poland)? (Initiated 3400 days ago on 5 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deluge (software)#Release History (Initiated 3413 days ago on 23 July 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Deluge (software)#RFC Comments. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Interstellar probe#RfC: Is the template .7B.7Btemplate.7Ccurrent.7D.7D relevant here? (Initiated 3410 days ago on 26 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sailor Moon#RfC: LGBT categories? (Initiated 3413 days ago on 23 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} AlbinoFerret 15:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- And that's $5 for Drmies, Cunard. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States–Cuban Thaw#Name is bad (Initiated 3413 days ago on 23 July 2015)? See the subsection Talk:United States–Cuban Thaw#RfC discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:LGBT rights opposition#RfC: Is using "bigotry" here express a point of view? (Initiated 3410 days ago on 26 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems best this one gets closed ASAP, as its outcome is interpreted in different ways lately, leading to reverts on this page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- The closer might want to look here to see why a close was requested [2]. AlbinoFerret 13:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Now HereSPACKlick (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Open since July. Jenks24 (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by DrKiernan. Jenks24 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Should we allow IPs and socks to file requests for arbitration enforcement? (Initiated 3376 days ago on 29 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mat (Russian profanity)#RfC: How much "poetic license" does a translator of primary sources have in wikipedia? (Initiated 3405 days ago on 31 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fire Emblem Fates#RfC: Inclusion of the "LGBT-related video games" category on this page (Initiated 3407 days ago on 29 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)#lgbt category (Initiated 3406 days ago on 30 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of cities proper by population#Hong Kong (Initiated 3396 days ago on 9 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israel#RFC on occupied territories (Initiated 3402 days ago on 3 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Providence (religious movement)#RFC -- Does this information belong in the article? (Initiated 3413 days ago on 23 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Eagles (band)#Genres in infobox (Initiated 3412 days ago on 24 July 2015)? Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Eagles (band)#RFC: Genres in the infobox in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Sockpuppet#"An editor has expressed a concern..." (Initiated 3496 days ago on 1 May 2015)? See the subsection Template talk:Sockpuppet#Proposal. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox building#Add a Project Manager parameter? (Initiated 3408 days ago on 28 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RfC: Is RfA a broken process? (Initiated 3400 days ago on 5 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Other
Pigsonthewing requested a close from an uninvolved administrator at Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Styling into regular infobox using {{admin help}}. Two responding administrators (including myself) felt this request would be better served by filing a request here. Mkdwtalk 19:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Mkdw, my closing comments are going to sound familiar to you. Cunard, either I'm getting really old or there's no "initiated" template here for me to date. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Buddhism and violence#Proposed merge with The Ashokavadana Massacre (Initiated 3409 days ago on 27 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 125#Userpage drafts shown in search engines (Initiated 3435 days ago on 1 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)#Changing "Bibliographies" section (Initiated 3404 days ago on 1 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, but this one illustrates that some of the listings here are utterly "work in search of an objective". --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#Recent series of revisions (Initiated 3401 days ago on 4 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- in as much this could be done. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Oldest in the backlog. Jenks24 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} --BDD (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Administrative
Talk:Battle of Borodino#RfC: Should the article infobox contain the result "French Pyrrhic Victory" and Talk:Battle of Borodino#RFC redux; alternative proposal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Borodino#RfC: Should the article infobox contain the result "French Pyrrhic Victory" and Talk:Battle of Borodino#RFC redux; alternative proposal (Initiated 3438 days ago on 28 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- note that nothing got done. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Oldest in the backlog. Jenks24 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Renewed request. This is overdue, and everyone seems to want it closed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- We'd need an uninvolved administrator to close the case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure of RHB100 - GPS, please. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- It seems the involved editors came to an agreement; we'd still need an uninvolved admin for formal closure (for protection against future incidents), please: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RHB100_time_too_valuable_for_Wikipedia_GPS_article. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Just a friendly reminder that we still need formal closure from an uninvolved admin, please: WP:ANB#Final closure of RHB100 - GPS. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Still waiting for formal closure on WP:ANB#Final closure of RHB100 - GPS -- would you please check, it's easier than it seems. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Still waiting for formal closure on WP:ANB#Final closure of RHB100 - GPS -- would you please check, it's easier than it seems. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This RfC addresses two issues: 1) Does the MoS allow the use of animate pronouns ("who," "she," etc.) to refer to fictional characters or must we use only inanimate pronouns ("which," "it"); and 2) Does this rule need to be stated explicitly in the MoS, etc.? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- For reference, it hasn't been 30 days yet (Initiated 3387 days ago on 18 August 2015). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Done closed by Tortle NE Ent 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Sarrin (June–July 2015)#RfC: What to include in result field of info box Template:Infobox_military_conflict (Initiated 3406 days ago on 30 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Done I closed this Sep 6th, not sure why I didnt mark it. AlbinoFerret 00:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Fork of open move discussion. The nominator (PatGallacher) has agreed to my request to withdraw it, so closure is uncontroversial housekeeping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC) {{Done}} NE Ent 22:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Administrative noticeboards
Would an uninvolved admin please assess this? It has been open since 10 August 2015. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3395 days ago on 10 August 2015)
- {{Not done}}; the fact that it rolled into the archive indicates insufficient support. To properly close we'd have unarchive, wrap a close tag around it, and let it archive again. A lot of pixelwork for not purpose. NE Ent 22:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Requests for comment
The whole discussion has turned into a trench warfare. TheHoax (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3456 days ago on 10 June 2015)
- This discussion was archive boxed on July 14 after an RfC was opened seeking more input on the topic, though that hasn't had any new input in about 4 days and so probably could be closed. PaleAqua (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3423 days ago on 13 July 2015)
- Ping. It has been quite a while now without new discussion. A close by an uninvolved editor would be appreciated. PaleAqua (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- We have pretty much a consensus of all save one, a formal close here would probably help against a repeat of an earlier edit war. See in particular Talk:Microsoft Surface#Reaching Consensus. This should be an easy close at this point; especially concerning the use of the disambiguated "Surface (first generation)" in prose. PaleAqua (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- I see that there are two motions, both opened on 25th of August. One of them had active discussion three days ago, so I don't think this one's ready to flip. Samsara 06:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
{{Not done}} Discussion has stopped and there's a clear consensus; the rfc was improperly closed by the filer but has been archived, best just to move on. NE Ent 23:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Transhumanist politics#RfC: How should the Transhumanist Party be described? (Initiated 3428 days ago on 8 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#RfC: Should the NCLANG guideline include references to PRIMARYTOPIC? (Initiated 3399 days ago on 6 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced and uninvolved editor please assess, summarize, and formally close the RfC on the Miss Cleo article. It is over 30 days old and the Legobot has removed its expired RFC template. The RfC is:
Talk:Miss Cleo#RFC: How to describe Miss Cleo in her article
(Initiated 3390 days ago on 15 August 2015)
Richard27182 (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
{{done}}SPACKlick (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced and neutral editor please look at and close this RfC? Thank you very much for assistance. SageRad (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
We need another closer to review this. As noted in this section, the person who came along and "closed" the RfC was not an uninvolved editor. Please, we need someone who is truly neutral in regard to controversy over Monsanto and GMO foods in general to help out. Please... someone who is not involved in editing or pushing points of view regarding this controversy cluster, we need your services. Thanks in advance. SageRad (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's no indication JzG was involved in any way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Second SageRad's concerns and submit Kingofaces knows very well that the closer JzG/Guy is clearly deeply involved per their statement at ArbCom regarding GMO articles, and I would go so far as to call this close as requiring corrective sanctions. Again, in no way is this closing editor uninvolved. Jusdafax 18:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Quite frankly, I don't see any indications of involvement, so please don't misrepresent me. They don't have a history in this topic and appear to be commenting in ArbCom as a largely outside observer (uninvolved tags have been removed in the case). They are a pretty well known admin for tackling WP:FRINGE/BLP issues, some of which have come into agricultural BLP related topics, but nothing that would consider them involved in this particular topic. At this point though, it's probably best for the closer to respond here when they get a chance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- This edit shows involvement as you were informed by SageRad in the discussion you are participating in at Talk:Monsanto legal cases and yet you say you "don't see any indications of involvement." Jusdafax 18:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I already addressed that topic and don't see it as involvement in this one. That's well within the fringe/BLP topics he commonly edits and wouldn't be considered involvement in this particular topic. Personally, I don't see him in GMO/Monsanto related topics when I edit in them. As before though, I think it's better for him to respond here rather than us fill up this page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- This edit shows involvement as you were informed by SageRad in the discussion you are participating in at Talk:Monsanto legal cases and yet you say you "don't see any indications of involvement." Jusdafax 18:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Quite frankly, I don't see any indications of involvement, so please don't misrepresent me. They don't have a history in this topic and appear to be commenting in ArbCom as a largely outside observer (uninvolved tags have been removed in the case). They are a pretty well known admin for tackling WP:FRINGE/BLP issues, some of which have come into agricultural BLP related topics, but nothing that would consider them involved in this particular topic. At this point though, it's probably best for the closer to respond here when they get a chance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- SageRad commenced the RfC because he couldn't force a consensus on including material or edit-war it in, there was certainly no consensus for inclusion during the discussion, and now when he doesn't get the result he wants he not only seeks a second bite of the cherry, he accuses the closer of gaming the system! I can see gaming going on, but not on the part of the closure, who correctly found solid consensus for inclusion where there was national coverage, otherwise we were making a mountain out of a molehill. That's the system at work. If these cases are significant enough to be included in our encyclopaedia, then finding coverage that goes beyond local coverage should be easy. As was constantly pointed out, these cases haven't been heard yet and any outcome is most likely years away. So what's the hurry? If they become significant, then they will attract wider coverage, and we will include them and we won't have to go through a massive discussion that has already been to various noticeboards and reached out to ArbCom. Quit trying to play games, SageRad. You started the RfC process, you would have rightly insisted those with contrary views abide by the decision if it had gone the other way, and now you want another busy admin to wade through a huge and contentious discussion and make another decision and keep it up until you wear everyone down with your persistence. The closer has given a clear way forward, and it is what you have been told from the start: if the case is significant enough, it will gain significant coverage. All you have to do is wait. --Pete (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The above allegations regarding myself are absolutely off base, and this is not the place for this discussion so i will not comment more. The record speaks for itself, for anyone willing to look at it. SageRad (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Current Status: I have asked JzG/Guy to undo their closing of the RfC due to the reasons explained on the link above, namely that the editor is not uninvolved or neutral on this topic. If they fail to undo their closing, then it will have to be brought to AN as per the advice here. This request here is finished, i believe. I repeat that i am refraining from responding to any of the allegations against me above, because this is not the forum for it. SageRad (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Removing poorly sourced material from a WP:BLP under attack form partisans does not constitute involvement. If you're going to set the bar that low you're unlikely to find an admin who passes the test, frankly, given the amount of sturm und drang the anti-GMO warriors have stirred up in recent months. If you dispute the actual close then you're welcome to request review at WP:AN. Disputing it on the basis of who assessed it, is unlikely to reflect well on you, so do be sure to show some reason why it's actually an incorrect summary of the debate. I think it's accurate as I have been watching it for a while, but I am just one person. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Already done Francis Schonken (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification. (Initiated 3464 days ago on 2 June 2015) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not done – MOS:IDENTITY (and related guidance like Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines#How to write about transgender, non-binary, and intersex people) was updated after the initiation of the RfC, with enough support by the participants in that VPP discussion, making a formal closure to the original VPP discussion a superfluous exercise, leave alone whether it would still be possible to provide an adequate closure with many early comments in that discussion referring to the former wording of the MOS guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree, I think a close is warranted, and MOS:IDENTITY should be updated to reflect the consensus (if it is determined that there is one) at the RfC.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I also think a close is warranted owing to the extensive discussion. The consensus in the discussion should be recorded by an RfC close and the guideline updated if it differs from the consensus at the RfC. Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree, I think a close is warranted, and MOS:IDENTITY should be updated to reflect the consensus (if it is determined that there is one) at the RfC.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I concur a close is needed, and this would be significant enough it would need an admin closure, preferably by a panel. Francis Schonken is not an admin and his "Not done" is just an expression of what he's not doing. Tweaks to MOS:IDENTITY while that huge RfC was open about MOS:IDENTITY cannot (except by curious accident) represent consensus, but were out-of-process. Commenters at the RfC would have been taking such moves into consideration while commenting anyway (I know I was). It cannot be that an RfC can be WP:GAMEd and mooted by rushing to change the wording one-sidedly while that very wording is under discussion, or we'd simply scrap the whole RfC system as useless. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Already done Francis Schonken (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Side discussion
- Just as this comes up, the Washington Post editor who maintains their style guide has issued an update. [3]. The Washington Post will henceforth use the singular "they" in situations where gender is ambiguous. John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- While that has no bearing on the RfC, it's interesting news. Kind of shocking, given the heretofore conservative nature (both linguistically and, since the 1990s, sociopolitically) of that paper. I think this might be the first major news organization to support singular they (and perhaps the last to drop the hyphen in e-mail, though a lot of individuals and book publishers still use it for consistency with e-government, e-commerce, and e-everything-else; "egovernment" looks completely ridiculous). I'm curious what else WashPost has changed, though frankly their style guide has very little influence. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the only way this could affect our two RfC's would be if it caused a significant number of additional editors to join the discussion and/or if it caused a significant number of current participants to change their opinion. And to whatever extent that is going to happen, I believe it will have happened by Dec. 15th.
Richard27182 (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the only way this could affect our two RfC's would be if it caused a significant number of additional editors to join the discussion and/or if it caused a significant number of current participants to change their opinion. And to whatever extent that is going to happen, I believe it will have happened by Dec. 15th.
Merge request open for fifteen months, due to the fact that participants cannot agree whether a consensus has been reached or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3774 days ago on 27 July 2014)
The RfD backlog isn't as bad as it has been in recent months, but there are still some stragglers. Attention to them would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 29#Aaaaaa – (Initiated 3417 days ago on 19 July 2015)- Already done Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Request for comment: Bot flags and bureaucrats (Initiated 3423 days ago on 13 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs)! Since you've moved this from the archive back to the main page, I've changed the links from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 125#Request for comment: Bot flags and bureaucrats to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Request for comment: Bot flags and bureaucrats. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Chinese dynasty infobox title naming dispute (Initiated 3403 days ago on 2 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Antikyra#Merge (Initiated 3410 days ago on 26 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Done boxed it up. AlbinoFerret 15:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
We need a close. People keep reverting all attempts to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.101 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3410 days ago on 26 July 2015)
- Third party closure needed or there will be whining. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} AlbinoFerret 22:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Should be easy, despite the length. This is covered (generally) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/FAQ#Specialized and is a perennial dispute at MOS, as shown by Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive index binary prefixes. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3441 days ago on 25 June 2015)
- Im going to give it a try, Im about half way into it and if it looks like I can I will move it from the archive and close it. AlbinoFerret 22:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Could an admin or experienced, uninvolved editor please close the two RfCs at Talk:Heavy_metal_music#RfC:_Should_the_article_include_a_paragraph_on_the_gender.2C_race_and_sexual_orientation_of_heavy_metal_musicians.3F and (...)?Thank you.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3383 days ago on 22 August 2015)
Could an admin or experienced, uninvolved editor please close the two RfCs at (...) and Talk:Heavy_metal_music#RfC:_Should_the_second_paragraph_of_the_Characteristics_section_have_a_sentence_on_the_role_of_the_guitar_solo_in_heavy_metal.3F?Thank you.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3374 days ago on 31 August 2015)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Sport season articles and flag use for club nationality? Thanks, Tvx1 11:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3431 days ago on 5 July 2015)
WP:TFD has got a month-long backlog, beginning with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 2. Alakzi (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why won't anybody help TFD? TFD sad. Alakzi (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3403 days ago on 2 August 2015)
- {{Already done}} Already closed by Opabinia regalis. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rick Perry#RFC about whether his presidential candidacy should be mentioned in the lead paragraph (Initiated 3374 days ago on 31 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Siachen Glacier#RfC: How should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed ? (Initiated 3402 days ago on 3 August 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "The last RfC was closed with this result. Keeping in view that result, how should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed?" Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Siachen Glacier#RfC: Should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed ? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Plant-based diet#RfC: Should this article remain a Disambiguation page? (Initiated 3404 days ago on 1 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Josh Duggar#Title for Josh Duggar Extramarital Affairs Section (Initiated 3380 days ago on 25 August 2015)? The last comment was made 28 August 2015 and WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} Already closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks#Should the following change be made to the main article? (Initiated 3400 days ago on 5 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{not done}} No need, as the discussion is archived and result is very clearly no. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Infectious medicine#RfC for appropriate title of this page (Initiated 3407 days ago on 29 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Would appreciate an administrator closing this RfC regarding the appropriate title and moving if deemed the consensus. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merged close request for same discussion from here. Cunard (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed and moved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merged close request for same discussion from here. Cunard (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:KalyeSerye#Merger proposal with AlDub (Initiated 3371 days ago on 3 September 2015)? Chihciboy (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The RfD backlog isn't as bad as it has been in recent months, but there are still some stragglers. Attention to them would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#How radiation affects Perceived temperature – (Initiated 3398 days ago on 7 August 2015)
- {{done}} by Steel1943. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The RfD backlog isn't as bad as it has been in recent months, but there are still some stragglers. Attention to them would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 1#Wakopedia – (Initiated 3384 days ago on 21 August 2015)
- {{done}} by Paine Ellsworth. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The RfD backlog isn't as bad as it has been in recent months, but there are still some stragglers. Attention to them would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 2#Physible – (Initiated 3380 days ago on 25 August 2015)
- {{Done}} Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The RfD backlog isn't as bad as it has been in recent months, but there are still some stragglers. Attention to them would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 7#Other Government Agency – (Initiated 3376 days ago on 29 August 2015)
- {{done}} by BDD. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Needs rationale as soon as possible. --George Ho (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3380 days ago on 25 August 2015) AlbinoFerret 03:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} closed, but really an RFC was not needed for this at all. So please George next time just ask the question without tagging it with RFC. RFC can be added later if the issue is controversial or major. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin please close this. It should be pretty easy. Its well past the 7 days for closing. (Initiated 3374 days ago on 31 August 2015) AlbinoFerret 06:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There's a clear consensus but the lone dissenter hasn't responded to my queries [4] [5] to wrap this up. Likely to be contentious so I'm bringing it here for a close by an uninvolved editor. Cheers, Vrac (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:TFD has got a month-long backlog, beginning with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 2. Alakzi (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why won't anybody help TFD? TFD sad. Alakzi (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3403 days ago on 2 August 2015)
- {{already done}} relisted: Now at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_16#Template:Infobox_Wikipedia_campus_ambassador due to relisting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Terms of Use (Initiated 3387 days ago on 18 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager#RfC: Should the table of contents an chapter summaries be included? (Initiated 3417 days ago on 19 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
The RfD backlog isn't as bad as it has been in recent months, but there are still some stragglers. Attention to them would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 2#Katrina Richardson – (Initiated 3372 days ago on 2 September 2015)
- {{done}} by BDD. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Since this is a pretty binary request, I think it could do with formal closure. 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The RfC is over a month old. Can someone please close? Settleman (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The RfD backlog isn't as bad as it has been in recent months, but there are still some stragglers. Attention to them would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 26#Wittle – (Initiated 3414 days ago on 22 July 2015)
This TfD has been open over a month and is not straight-forward enough for a non-admin to close. Closure would be appreciated. (Initiated 3387 days ago on 18 August 2015) ~ RobTalk 04:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Snježana Kordić#RFC: does this article have a POV problem? (Initiated 3396 days ago on 9 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Association for Progressive Communications#RfC: Does updated History section have enough references? (Initiated 3398 days ago on 7 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:India#RfC: Area number and map in infobox should reflect present realities on the ground, not claims? (Initiated 3391 days ago on 14 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Nazism sidebar#RfC: Swastika size in infobox (Initiated 3391 days ago on 14 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Attention deficit disorder#Propose redirect of Attention deficit disorder to Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Initiated 3396 days ago on 9 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Type 054A frigate#RfC: number of commissioned Type 054As (Initiated 3390 days ago on 15 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#GJ, Gl, or Gliese (Star Catalog) (Initiated 3387 days ago on 18 August 2015)? See the request for closure at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Was the Gliese consensus not closed properly?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Captain America: Civil War#RFC: Does Ant-Man gain additional strength or retain his normal strength while shrinking? (Initiated 3388 days ago on 17 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#RFC: Suggestion for Primary Schedule (Initiated 3388 days ago on 17 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Suggestion (Initiated 3384 days ago on 21 August 2015)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Obeah#Shamanism category and link (Initiated 3388 days ago on 17 August 2015)? The category mentioned in the opening post still is in the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry/Merck#RfC: Should this proposal be enacted (Initiated 3391 days ago on 14 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:User WikiProject United States presidential elections#Request for Comment Remodeling of userbox style (Initiated 3392 days ago on 13 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Supernatural#Article is biased towards western supernaturalism, what can be done to fix this? (Initiated 3389 days ago on 16 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Proposed revision to Gallery policy (Initiated 3399 days ago on 6 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Community portal#RFC on call to action for missing heavily cited female scientists (Initiated 3391 days ago on 14 August 2015)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3386 days ago on 19 August 2015) This has been open for over a month now. It has 7 delete !votes against 3 keep !votes so it shouldn't be too difficult of a decision. Thanks! -- Tavix (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}. But in future, Tavix, please try and word your requests here more neutrally. Jenks24 (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Early 2012 Hong Kong protests#RfC: Current title (Initiated 3386 days ago on 19 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joseon#RfC: Joseon Kingdom or Joseon Dynasty? (Initiated 3388 days ago on 17 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC: Is reference to views of Salah relevant to this section of the article? (Initiated 3386 days ago on 19 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action#RfC: Should the lead explicitly state that the P5+1 have accepted that uranium enrichment will take place in Iran? (Initiated 3388 days ago on 17 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Per User:Milowent it is WP:IAR in the best interests of building an encyclopedia "early close by Bigtimepeace in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident (October 2009) counsels the correct action. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3357 days ago on 17 September 2015) AlbinoFerret 00:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking for an uninvolved admin to close this discussion. A bot keeps removing the code on an RfC that's more than 30 days old, even though no admin has closed the RfC. There is a concerne that with the coding gone it's been taken off the list of active RfCs and so no one will ever come by to close it. BOZ (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3382 days ago on 23 August 2015) AlbinoFerret 00:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a consensus already. George Ho (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3372 days ago on 2 September 2015) AlbinoFerret 20:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#Archive navigation templates? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3381 days ago on 24 August 2015)
- {{done}} Marking as done, although it is now under deletion review. The immediate need is satisfied. ~ RobTalk 23:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose#straw poll--"off campus" (Initiated 3397 days ago on 8 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling VisualEditor for existing accounts which are dormant or inexperienced (Initiated 3372 days ago on 2 September 2015)? There has been little discussion in the past week. Please consider the closed RfC Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 125#Discussion - Gradually enabling VisualEditor for new accounts in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#COI editing and personal attacks on Democracy & Nature and Talk:Democracy & Nature (Initiated 3380 days ago on 25 August 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: John sargis and Panlis topic banned from all articles related to Inclusive Democracy. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Ricky81682. (now in archive 900). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Oldest RM in the backlog. Jenks24 (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon#RfC: Should this sentence be cited? (Initiated 3376 days ago on 29 August 2015)? There have been no comments in 19 days. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Clarification request: non-admin closure of own nomination (Initiated 3384 days ago on 21 August 2015)? Please consider the earlier RfC Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19#RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- RfC opened 20:17, 21 August 2015 by myself; ended 21:00, 20 September 2015 by Legobot. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Prefix suggestion: TP: for Template: (Initiated 3375 days ago on 30 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thread was archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 127#Prefix suggestion: TP: for Template:. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Moved RFC out of archives to close, its here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Prefix_suggestion:_TP:_for_Template:AlbinoFerret 20:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor see this discussion and close if appropriate? The AfD discussion for this page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Mohamed (student), closed with a consensus to move from Ahmed Mohamed (student) to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. Before it was moved, a separate RM, to move the article to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed, existed. (Initiated 3353 days ago on 21 September 2015) Epic Genius (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion needs to be reviewed and closed by an univolved editor. I think enough explanation is presented at the beginning paragraph. Thank you. Mhhossein (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3381 days ago on 24 August 2015) Mhhossein (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor is requested to close the discussion on whether to merge Varenyky into Pierogi. — Kpalion(talk) 21:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3427 days ago on 9 July 2015) — Kpalion(talk) 15:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} I also left a note on the Varenyky talk page that the discussion had been closed. AlbinoFerret 20:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Can we get an uninvolved individual to close this? Apologies in advanced.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3376 days ago on 29 August 2015) AlbinoFerret 14:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} AlbinoFerret 15:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor close this RFC? There has been no discussion in the last week, and the consensus is mostly clear. (Initiated 3367 days ago on 7 September 2015) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 02:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Discussion ended on 10 September. AlbinoFerret 14:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced and uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Charas/Archives/2020/February#RfC: Is the detailed methods of manufacturing charas relevant? (Initiated 3382 days ago on 23 August 2015)? Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor come and assess the consensus (Initiated 3374 days ago on 31 August 2015) ? Thanks. Benjil (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3346 days ago on 28 September 2015) Can be closed early, per WP:SNOWBALL (it's unanimous in one direction, but for a single !vote). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It was (Initiated 3354 days ago on 20 September 2015) AlbinoFerret 12:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
If an uninvolved administrator keeps up with U.S. politics and religion, they are probably familiar with Kim Davis, the court clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue same-sex (later all) marriage licences. An elevated but seemingly endless discussion has endured questioning why the biography article is not instead an event article about the controversy. Someone then essentially duplicated the biography article into an event article titled, not Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy, but Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. We started a Request for Comments about whether we should have two articles or one, and if one, which one, and if two, what should be the title of the event article? Please help us make sense of this discussion and determine what is the consensus. Prhartcom (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's not proper to have two identical articles with different titles, and the consensus isn't totally clear. We need more eyes. --BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC) -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the discussion which was snow closed a week prior to this RfC, in favor of splitting the article: talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)/Archive 3#Split?- MrX 15:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- That RfC has been superseded by the later RfC (the subject of this thread): RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?) -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
To the administrators: Please step in soon and resolve this. An editor has just foolishly nominated the heavily maintained Kim Davis (county clerk) for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination). See my comment there. What is at issue is: Should there be a controversy article and a biography article, or just one article? If both, what should be the name of the controversy article? If both, should there also be a third, wider-scope Kentucky article? Wise eyes are needed. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Guy, thank-you for closing this discussion at the article talk page, deciding that consensus decided on one article. Could you please go one step further and decide if consensus has decided if the one article should be a biography article (named Kim Davis (county clerk)) or an event article (named Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy)? As well, we may need to clean up the two entries on this page. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know from that debate, because it is not easy to unpick from the opinions on one article versus multiple. Normal practice would be to write about the incident not the person, per WP:BLP1E, but the smart move is probably Requested Moves. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank-you; we will proceed with that advice, although it will require the involved editors to give their opinion again. Please note that there is a related AfD discussion that an editor opened without realizing this discussion was open; should you close it today as well? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination). Prhartcom (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know from that debate, because it is not easy to unpick from the opinions on one article versus multiple. Normal practice would be to write about the incident not the person, per WP:BLP1E, but the smart move is probably Requested Moves. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This is closed. Please archive. BTW, no one on this page ever responded. Prhartcom (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Archived and the editors are moving on. AlbinoFerret 01:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not exactly. The editors are not "moving on", the editors needed assistance the entire time, but none was given. However, an administrator happened to stop by our discussion to close it for us, thankfully. Prhartcom (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry looked at "talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)/Archive 3#Split?" and I noticed it was archived. In any event, the edits I made here were just so the bot would archive the section. AlbinoFerret 03:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not exactly. The editors are not "moving on", the editors needed assistance the entire time, but none was given. However, an administrator happened to stop by our discussion to close it for us, thankfully. Prhartcom (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
An uninvolved admin is requested to assess this situation. (Initiated 3366 days ago on 8 September 2015) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive899#Threat of Outing / Personal Attacks. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done stale thread, no need for formal close. NE Ent 17:20, 3 October 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.
- The virtually unanimous consensus a week or two ago to deprecate the huge banner version of the ENGVAR templates (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Proposal to deprecate Template:English variant notice) is being forum-shopped in an "RFC" that is not actually an RFC, at WP:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Template:English variant notice be deprecated? (and WP:VPPRO wouldn't even be the right venue for such a discussion anyway; it would be WP:VPPOL, since this is not a proposal, but is an out-of-process attempt to override consensus at a WP:POLICY (i.e. policy or guideline) in favor of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS nebulously hovering around some template talk pages, of templates for which there was never a consensus to begin with at MOS for "enforcing" MOS:ENGVAR in the heavy-handed manner these banner templates do plastered across the tops of article talk pages and in article and talk page editnotices, so that any editor there is constantly brow-beaten with them; many of the ENGVAR assertions in question have not been subject to a consensus discussion at all, and do not have strong national ties, thus these banners are a WP:OWN problem; these are only some of the reasons they were deprecated).
I don't know what the intent/motivation is (not being a mind-reader), though I note that I announced a day or two ago that I was working on the WP:TFD for these and a categorization merger plan (the banner templates at issue do not categorize quite the same way as the unobtrusive mainspace equivalents of the banner versions). This pseudo-RFC, pseudo-proposal does not appear to have understood anything in the previous discussion, but is an odd "we need ENGVAR templates!" overreaction. The proper next venue is WP:TFD, at which seen entries in the next day or two (there are some complications to work out, even two of the template are not ENGVAR templates at all, but usurping them for non-MOS purposes to assert a form of "specialized style"; so some proposals for what to do with their underlying intent will need to be worked in). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: The poster of this not-RfC has given out 30 or so "notices" about the VPPRO discussion, to (according to its wording) anyone who has "had some involvement with" the metatemplate in question (i.e. people who have edited it, i.e. people who are likely to be in favor of it, but who may have not paid attention to it in years much less participated in the recent consensus discussion). WT:MOS was not notified. This appears to be WP:CANVASSING. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have time to respond to this at length at the moment, but I can give a quick statement. I only notified people already "involved" to a certain extent. I notified people that participated in the last deletion discussion (which is part of what the proposal suggests, and basically what it does in essence even if it isn't deleted) Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 7#Varieties of English templates, I notified everyone that participated in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Sub-national varieties of English? first discussion, those currently in the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9#Template:AmericanEnglish discussion where the issue was raised, and a handful of people to recently edit the templates in question. I also posted at the location of the first discussion WT:MOS#Request for comment: Deprecation of the Template:English variant notice, and the talk page of the metatemplate in question. I was not aware of the discussion when it took place on the MoS talk page and I don't call the 4 supports in that archive a proper consensus for any issue this big; it was also never formally closed/evaluated. Both this RfC and the Notices I sent out were neutral, and I feel that I was within Wikipedia:Canvassing#WP:APPNOTE. My goal is to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think the accusation of canvassing is merited. The poster of the second RfC sent out notices even to people who voted for deprecation in the first RfC, including SMcCandlish, who is known to be a vocal and energetic defender of his views. Seems like reasonably balanced publicization to me.
- The issue boils down to this: "We didn't have consensus because I didn't know about the discussion" is not a valid reason to rerun an RfC, but "We didn't have consensus because not enough people knew about the discussion" is. Did enough people know about the first discussion? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Of course they did. MOS is one of the most watchlisted pages on the entire system and it is the obvious, normal venue for MoS-related discussions, including MOS:ENGVAR ones. The discussion for what to do about the templates, since deprecation, like how to merge their categorization functions, is a WP:TFD matter, and the TfD was already announced (in multiple places, including this very page) as in-preparation. A move that would simultaneously overturn the perfectly valid consensus discussion at WT:MOS, and thwart the upcoming TfD, is out-of-process "panic" about the deprecation notice. It should be hatted with
{{Discussion top}}, and normal TfD process should proceed. If someone wants to object to the merging and eventual deletion of the banner version of these templates, they can do so at the TfD, per standard operating procedure. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)- Four supports in a subsection of a discussion on a different issue is a valid consensus for the deprecation of templates that appear on 10,000+ pages? Notification about the the discussion was not even posted at the talk page of the metatemplate in question (let alone those of all the templates affected). If it was simply the deletion in question, TFD would be the appropriate forum. It isn't. Deprecation (while close to deletion in some senses) is the concern of the RfC. The only reason I can think of to be opposed to a larger discussion, with the appropriate parts of the community more properly notified, is that the proper consensus might be different.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- A discussion open long enough to be archived because there was no further interest in commenting on it, on one of the most-watchlisted pages on the entire system, that is actually the correct venue for ENGVAR-related matters, and clearly labeled that it was a proposal to deprecate this stuff, yes, that is sufficient. Anyone working on ENGVAR templates should be following the MOS (i.e. ENGVAR) page (how do they even know what they're implementing if they're not?), and this was a WP:POLICY discussion about whether ENGVAR should be "enforced" in a manner anything like this, not about template coding matters. It is headed next to TfD ("D" stands for "discussion" not "deletion") where everyone watching the template will get notification of the template-specific TfD discussion. The outcome of that discussion could be any number of things, including to rescope and redocument, to delete, to overturn the MOS discussion (maybe to come up with a narrower solution to the issues raised), to merge the other way around, or no consensus, or whatever. A "help save a template I like" WP:PARENT exercise at VP is just heat, not light. All you've done is whipped up a few panicky "huh?" opposes who clearly did not digest and understand the deprecation discussion. They're objections will be factored into the TfD discussion, so I guess I should thank you in a roundabout way. This will go to TfD discussion where it belongs shortly enough. The fact that this heavy-handed banner is used on so many pages without any consensus being found at more than a tiny handful of those articles' talk pages, has a lot to do with why this template was deprecated. That it has no consensus to be used in the majority of places it has been used is easily demonstrated by removing it from a bunch of talk pages, editnotices, etc., to which it has been added without a discussion indicating consensus to do so, and see how many times you get reverted (for me so far: zero). In the process of deprecation-tagging the templates, no one has responded other than you, days after the fact. Clearly the community totally WP:DGAFs about these darned things. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Four supports in a subsection of a discussion on a different issue is a valid consensus for the deprecation of templates that appear on 10,000+ pages? Notification about the the discussion was not even posted at the talk page of the metatemplate in question (let alone those of all the templates affected). If it was simply the deletion in question, TFD would be the appropriate forum. It isn't. Deprecation (while close to deletion in some senses) is the concern of the RfC. The only reason I can think of to be opposed to a larger discussion, with the appropriate parts of the community more properly notified, is that the proper consensus might be different.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Of course they did. MOS is one of the most watchlisted pages on the entire system and it is the obvious, normal venue for MoS-related discussions, including MOS:ENGVAR ones. The discussion for what to do about the templates, since deprecation, like how to merge their categorization functions, is a WP:TFD matter, and the TfD was already announced (in multiple places, including this very page) as in-preparation. A move that would simultaneously overturn the perfectly valid consensus discussion at WT:MOS, and thwart the upcoming TfD, is out-of-process "panic" about the deprecation notice. It should be hatted with
- I don't have time to respond to this at length at the moment, but I can give a quick statement. I only notified people already "involved" to a certain extent. I notified people that participated in the last deletion discussion (which is part of what the proposal suggests, and basically what it does in essence even if it isn't deleted) Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 7#Varieties of English templates, I notified everyone that participated in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Sub-national varieties of English? first discussion, those currently in the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9#Template:AmericanEnglish discussion where the issue was raised, and a handful of people to recently edit the templates in question. I also posted at the location of the first discussion WT:MOS#Request for comment: Deprecation of the Template:English variant notice, and the talk page of the metatemplate in question. I was not aware of the discussion when it took place on the MoS talk page and I don't call the 4 supports in that archive a proper consensus for any issue this big; it was also never formally closed/evaluated. Both this RfC and the Notices I sent out were neutral, and I feel that I was within Wikipedia:Canvassing#WP:APPNOTE. My goal is to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3449 days ago on 17 June 2015)
As pointed out above, there is another RFC on this topic that was on the Village Pump here is a link to the archives. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_126#RfC:_Should_Template:English_variant_notice_be_deprecated.3F. Since I closed the one on the Village Pump, I wont be closing this one. But I question if the voices of a few editors on a talk page RFC can override a Village Pump RFC with much higher participation on the same topic. That is a question best left to an admin. AlbinoFerret 14:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor see this discussion and close if appropriate? The discussion is very interesting in the aspect of Wiki policy. The main question is the following: Can a group of sources introduce the term in the article to which they provide no definition at all, and without even a single reference to the primary source? We have a whole group of that sources. On the other hand there's only a single source that both defines the term and references the primary source, all with an extensive explanation of the whole question. So, as I see it, there's basically a conflict between quantity and quality. There's also a possibility to introduce the very same edit that's already present for quite some time in much more important article. Thank you. 178.167.101.96 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3367 days ago on 7 September 2015) AlbinoFerret 17:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Compromise guideline written because of an inconclusive RfC at WT:ASTRO. Seems to have consensus, but since discussion has been slow and I am the main author, I figured I would post here instead of closing myself. Relisting is also a possibility if the amount of discussion is judged to be too little. (Initiated 3373 days ago on 1 September 2015). A2soup (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#Spinoff title (Initiated 3361 days ago on 13 September 2015)? See the suggestion for a close at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#Spinoff ready to close?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- These are now old requests which are superseded by newer ones, so this section should likely be closed. Consensus has changed quite a bit, but is still unclear.
See the newer request below on this page: Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)#RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?) -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC) - @Cunard: Should this still be listed there? Armbrust The Homunculus 09:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps combine with Kim Davis request below. Prhartcom (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
This is closed. Please archive. BTW, no one on this page ever responded. Prhartcom (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Already done Sure thing. George Ho (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm asking an admin to prosecute this thread which occurred at ANI some days ago and was archived without being closed. This edit motivated me to bring it here. As far as I see a boomerang was suggested for the initiator of that thread. (Initiated 3367 days ago on 7 September 2015) Mhhossein (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- A fresh instance of commenting on editor not on content by him. Mhhossein (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Another one! Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Mhhossein, be careful what you wish for; the two diffs given above are not NPAs, no matter how much you'd like them to be. Anders Feder, you are likewise headed toward a block if you keep that up: a multitude of things that by themselves are not blockable can end up forming a blockable heap of edits. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3376 days ago on 29 August 2015). -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done. This still needs to be closed. -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3374 days ago on 31 August 2015). -- Tavix (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Steel1943. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not done. This still needs to be closed. -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Watts_Up_With_That?#RfC:_Should_.22Watts_Up_With_That.22_blog_be_called_.22denier.22.3F (Initiated 3372 days ago on 2 September 2015)? Thanks, Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3370 days ago on 4 September 2015) Would an uninvolved but experienced editor or administrator please close the discussion? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. {{done}} Drmies (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3373 days ago on 1 September 2015) This AfD nomination is over a month old and needs to be closed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3339 days ago on 5 October 2015) An uninvolved admin is requested to do something about this situation. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
There is probably consensus here. I relisted it for another month, but nothing new happened since. George Ho (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3378 days ago on 27 August 2015)
(Initiated 3356 days ago on 18 September 2015) There is a consensus, so someone should make a correct rationale. --George Ho (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Eh, sure. "Correct rationale"? {{done}} Drmies (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3371 days ago on 3 September 2015) It's been over 30 days, and we are approaching the 5 million mark. Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus of this proposal? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Good luck drawing one up. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon)#Current title (Initiated 3381 days ago on 24 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of countries by real GDP growth rate#Sources (Initiated 3375 days ago on 30 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)#RFC pertaining to "Morality and Ethics" section (Initiated 3373 days ago on 1 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gospel of Mark#Rfc - Include Greek names of the twelve Apostles (Initiated 3379 days ago on 26 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 56#RfC: No indication of importance (films) (Initiated 3368 days ago on 6 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jadwiga of Poland#RfC: was she Queen of Poland, "King" of Poland or King of Poland? (Initiated 3379 days ago on 26 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Joan Crawford#brothers age (Initiated 3379 days ago on 26 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Consensus was clear to the proposer at the end of the RFC, boxed it up to archive it. AlbinoFerret 20:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ali Khamenei#Non-RS Sources for Views (Initiated 3376 days ago on 29 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} SNOW RFC with no opposition, boxed it to archive it. AlbinoFerret 20:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC: Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP? (Initiated 3375 days ago on 30 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor close this discussion? It's been over 30 days and discussion has now ground to a halt (not to mention the previous discussion slowed by this RfC). Thank you. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Navbox#RfC: Should the default colors for this template be changed to satisfy AAA level accessibility color contrasts WP:COLOR? If so, to which colors? (Initiated 3375 days ago on 30 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cunard, let the chips fall where they may. {{done}} Drmies (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 3#Portrait photo problems, again (Initiated 3357 days ago on 17 September 2015)? See the RfC subsections Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 3#RfC on stopgap photo and Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 3#RfC2 on stopgap photo. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Moved from archive to here Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn#Portrait_photo_problems.2C_again, and closed three RFC's in that section. AlbinoFerret 15:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#RfC: BC births and deaths categorization scheme (Initiated 3361 days ago on 13 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Can this GAR be closed by an uninvolved editor? There's a clear consensus and nobody has commented in a while. Brustopher (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Could somebody drop by Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 28 and close the Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion discussion. It's been open for 2 weeks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3377 days ago on 28 August 2015)
- Ping? This is 30 days old now. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Need closure on this DRV which was listed a month ago; most DRVs last a week. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Anybody? Is this the DRV time forgot? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Does this require an admin to close?- MrX 16:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Anybody? Is this the DRV time forgot? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 August#Communist Party of Britain (Initiated 3377 days ago on 28 August 2015)- Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 August#Rasgulla (Initiated 3382 days ago on 23 August 2015)
The above two move reviews are long over their listing period and are stale, therefore they need to be closed. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Remodeling of major party candidate areas (Initiated 3391 days ago on 14 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:IQ and Global Inequality#RFC: Should the article summarize the book's argument? (Initiated 3366 days ago on 8 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:European colonization of the Americas#RfC: Should the word "seize" or "acquire" be used to describe the process through which colonists came to control the Americas? (Initiated 3379 days ago on 26 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani#RFC: Lede Section: Should Murder for Hire be excluded as discredited? (Initiated 3378 days ago on 27 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Scanian dialect/Archive 2#RfC: Question of inclusion of Scanian population figures from Ethnologue (Initiated 3372 days ago on 2 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Multiple TfDs related to WikiBreak templates
All of the following TfDs need closure and were opened on the same date.
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_9#Generic "Busy" templates
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_9#More "Busy" variants
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_9#Template:User longterm inactive
(Initiated 3396 days ago on 9 August 2015) ~ RobTalk 23:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Ais523, Opabinia regalis and Nabla respectively. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3384 days ago on 21 August 2015). -- Tavix (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3372 days ago on 2 September 2015). -- Tavix (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3376 days ago on 29 August 2015). -- Tavix (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anglo-Saxons#RfC: Should we merge this article with Anglo-Saxon England? (Initiated 3378 days ago on 27 August 2015)? Please consider the April 2014 discussion Talk:Anglo-Saxons#Proposed merger with Anglo-Saxon England in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)#RfC: How should Camille Paglia be described/identified in the article? (Initiated 3383 days ago on 22 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Mariah Carey (album)#Cassette cover art (Initiated 3382 days ago on 23 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jones & Jury (TV series)#RfC: Concerning the lead (Initiated 3372 days ago on 2 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jesus#RfC: Should this info be included for NPOV? (Initiated 3365 days ago on 9 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Esquivalience two days ago.- MrX 19:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3376 days ago on 29 August 2015). -- Tavix (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3370 days ago on 4 September 2015) -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3365 days ago on 9 September 2015) -- Tavix (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Request for Comment: Country of Origin (Initiated 3369 days ago on 5 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --Elvey(t•c) 00:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Could an experienced editor please close this RFC? It was opened July 29, and the RFC template was automatically removed August 28, but it never was formally closed. 43.228.158.55 (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC
TfD has a major backlog and this one has been open for almost two months. I'm pretty much the only admin frequently closing TfDs these days and I was involved in the background to this one, so an outsider is needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3410 days ago on 26 July 2015) AlbinoFerret 00:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genetically modified food#RFC regarding WHO study (Initiated 3378 days ago on 27 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of best-selling girl groups#RfC (Initiated 3383 days ago on 22 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization#Songs by artist: genre categories that are mostly right but wrong for certain songs (Initiated 3366 days ago on 8 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nuclear weapon#RfC: Section about Ali Khamenei's views (Initiated 3373 days ago on 1 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please note that the RFC is opened in a misleading manner, i.e. there was no intention to have a section devoted to an individual's view, rather an "Islamic view" containing the views of different Islamic clerics was aimed. Mhhossein (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as consensus not to include content as presented, with some suggestions for moving forward. --Errant (chat!) 21:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:College of Technology, Pantnagar#RfC: Is the page neutral and provides real information? (Initiated 3382 days ago on 23 August 2015)? A participant noted: "The RfC author appears to be requesting permission to remove the Peackock and COI warning templates on the article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi MrX (talk · contribs). I don't think this has been closed yet. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that Cunard. I evidently placed the "done" template in the wrong section.- MrX 02:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Now {{done}} --Errant (chat!) 21:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposed change - 'No paid editing" for admins (Initiated 3370 days ago on 4 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Waldorf education#Request for comments: allegations of promotional tone (Initiated 3371 days ago on 3 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3374 days ago on 31 August 2015). -- Tavix (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor please close this request? Thank you. I think that the consensus has been established. I opened the request, the admin had himself purposed the same solution, I agreed, and the editor who opposed then also agreed and entered that info to the article himself. The request then was left hanging. Since then another editor had showed up opposing, but he really has no valid stand nor any source to his cause. 94.28.177.61 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC
May, a non-Serbian and no-Croatian editor close this. I'm reverting the closure because it was not properly closed. No tag was added, and no explanation. The closure also stated that there is no consensus which is false. All 3 mayor contributors have reached a consensus. Since Serbian and Croatian editors may be biased, I think it would be the best that the closure is done by an uninvolved editor who doesn't have any feeling one way or another.194.152.253.41 (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I will just note that some editors keep closing the request on the talk page. I don't want to go to edit warring over there so I won't revert them. I explained to them that an closure request is pending here. I even made a report for edit warring which didn't prevent them, so don't be surprised to find a closed request on the talk page.194.152.253.43 (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I will also like to state that we have a RS, and no sources that oppose it. There is no reason it shouldn't enter the article. 194.152.253.40 (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- RM has been open for two weeks already, which is longer than the typical week such discussions last. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Has been given two full listing periods and discussion has slowed considerably, time for a close. Jenks24 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3338 days ago on 6 October 2015) AlbinoFerret 22:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by BD2412 - MrX 17:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Carly Fiorina#RfC: Should the lede say that Fiorina cut 30,000 jobs without mentioning that she also created tens of thousands of jobs? (Initiated 3356 days ago on 18 September 2015)? There has been no discussion since 3 October 2015. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC - should we allow company account names with verification (Initiated 3373 days ago on 1 September 2015)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Remove the résumé exclusion from U5 (Initiated 3366 days ago on 8 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bombay Riots#RfC: -Add series "Violence against Hindus" or Remove series "Violence against Muslims in India"? (Initiated 3381 days ago on 24 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} --Errant (chat!) 08:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- No new comments since October 10. Calidum 19:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Cúchullain. Jenks24 (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Faith healing/Archive 3#RfC: Is faith healing a form of pseudoscience and should it be labeled as such either in the article or by assignment of category pseudoscience? (Initiated 3366 days ago on 8 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} AlbinoFerret 04:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Review of this close on WP:AN please do not archive. AlbinoFerret 15:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Close Review was closed Endorse Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Reverted_non-admin_closure_of_RFC_on_Talk:Faith_healing AlbinoFerret 18:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Removed {{tl}} and {{Do not archive until}} per above, so this can be archived again. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, kindly close AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Grains, nominator has withdrawn its nomination. Article is nominated for DYK so it will be better to close it quickly so that AfD template will get removed from article main space and DYK can be ready to get reviewed. Thank you. --Human3015TALK 10:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Human3015: Not done fails WP:SK#1, which states that no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. As there is a redirect !vote, then this will have to run it's course. Mdann52 (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by MBisanz. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:SNOW close. Requester clearly states motivation as WP:AFD by proxy. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3324 days ago on 20 October 2015) AlbinoFerret 18:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- This has been running for three weeks and there have been no new comments in at least a week. The closing admin should also post the result at Talk:Manhattan Municipal Building (since that is where the dispute first arose). Thanks, Neutralitytalk 01:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3347 days ago on 27 September 2015)
4 CFDs
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 9#Establishments in the Empire of Brazil categories (Initiated 3427 days ago on 9 July 2015)
- Done No consensus. Samsara 15:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 31#Category:Tamil television series endings by year (Initiated 3405 days ago on 31 July 2015)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 20#Category:Meadowbank Thistle F.C. (Initiated 3385 days ago on 20 August 2015)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 29#Category:Creative works (Initiated 3376 days ago on 29 August 2015)
The above four CFDs are the last remaining from this summer. Could somebody close them? Armbrust The Homunculus 21:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- All {{done}} --Aervanath (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3378 days ago on 27 August 2015) Could an uninvolved, experienced editor please assess consensus for each of the proposals at this RfC and close the discussion? Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trypophobia#RfC Should we include this image? (Initiated 3381 days ago on 24 August 2015)? Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 1#Removed Image. in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ganesh Chaturthi#Separate articles required (Initiated 3349 days ago on 25 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Not sure @Cunard: Would you please explain? You linked to diff showing an RfC template being removed and linked to a discussion that is not an RfC. - MrX 16:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I meant Talk:Ganesh Chaturthi#Separate articles required, not Talk:Ganesh Chaturthi#Undiscussed Name change. Thank you for the correction. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
There are two open, semi-related discussions that have long since stop producing anything resembling intelligent debate. Both could be closed fairly easily by an uninvolved admin or whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- One of them is now closed. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- The other is {{done}} as well.--Aervanath (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Consensus must have reached. It needs accurate closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Discussion ended on the 12 October, so I closed it. AlbinoFerret 00:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an Admin please close this. It is a little long, but should be an easy close. Discussion stopped the 19th, only new posts are asking for a close, and its seven days past its start. (Initiated 3327 days ago on 17 October 2015) AlbinoFerret 03:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peter Dinklage#RFC on the inclusion of his dwarfism in the lead (Initiated 3362 days ago on 12 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Edward J. Ruppelt#RfC: External links to archives of works (Initiated 3359 days ago on 15 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Velliscig#Requests for comment (Initiated 3349 days ago on 25 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States#Phrasing for inequality RFC segment. (Initiated 3474 days ago on 23 May 2015)? An editor wrote at the top of the discussion: "Note: this section is being returned from the archive pending RFC closure, and because it is referred to by section wikilinks in the sections below." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Firefox for mobile#Request for consensus and comment (Initiated 3352 days ago on 22 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Agnes de Mille#Ballet template (Initiated 3355 days ago on 19 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Wardrobe malfunction#Removal of Template:Globalize (Initiated 3357 days ago on 17 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Rfc: Require details of compensation for Paid-contribution disclosure (Initiated 3358 days ago on 16 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:California wildfires#Should the top section, lists by year, be removed? (Initiated 3359 days ago on 15 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC#Citizens United Redirect Reallocation Proposal (Initiated 3358 days ago on 16 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Current disaster#What qualifies as 'current' (Initiated 3349 days ago on 25 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3381 days ago on 24 August 2015) A NAC was recently vacated at DRV and a re-close by an uninvolved admin is needed. Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#Request for Comments: Italics or Non-Italics in "website" field
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#Request for Comments: Italics or Non-Italics in "website" field (Initiated 3365 days ago on 9 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Removing Persondata (Initiated 3366 days ago on 8 September 2015)? Please consider the closed RfCs Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 122#RfC: Should Persondata template be deprecated and methodically removed from articles? and Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 64#Remove persondata in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Now archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 127#Removing Persondata. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done Moved back to main page to close, the orignal link works for going to it. AlbinoFerret 16:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eliot Higgins#RfC: How should Richard Llloyd be described in the article? (Initiated 3355 days ago on 19 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eliot Higgins#RfC: How should Richard Llloyd be described in the article??. Thanks, Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania#Request for comment (Initiated 3357 days ago on 17 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Time to shut down WP:NFCR by merging it into WP:FFD? (Initiated 3342 days ago on 2 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
No new comments since October 3. One user suggested the RFC wasn't publicized enough, so notices were posted on the talk pages of relevant articles on October 4 (here, here, and here) but no additional comments were received. Bmf 051 (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3346 days ago on 28 September 2015)
- Done Moved from Archive to close, can now be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#RfC: Should "FC"/"SC" be used less often in Major League Soccer articles? AlbinoFerret 14:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Palestine#RfC on splitting article into Palestine and Palestine (disambiguation) (Initiated 3366 days ago on 8 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Carly Fiorina#RfC regarding infobox photo (Initiated 3345 days ago on 29 September 2015)? The last comment was made 13 October 2015. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:United Nations#Accusations of rape, etc. (Initiated 3354 days ago on 20 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Turks in Bulgaria#Article title and regions with significant populations (Initiated 3352 days ago on 22 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done sst✈discuss 17:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC) (non-admin)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Auto sign on talkpages (Initiated 3371 days ago on 3 September 2015)? This was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3347 days ago on 27 September 2015)
This move review is well over the listing period, and these have a tendency to linger in the backlog.--Cúchullain t/c 15:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- The review was opened September 27 and the discussion has basically stalled. Calidum 23:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Closed (I've updated navboxes and moved related articles, though there may be some incoming links to Football at the 1956 Summer Olympics which will need redirecting once the navbox templates have refreshed.) SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eshhar#RfC: Is it relevant to mention the role of scouts in a community such as Eshhar? (Initiated 3349 days ago on 25 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Liberland#RfC: micronation promotional elements (Initiated 3359 days ago on 15 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the discussion? Thanks. --Cavarrone 17:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident#RFC: How should the clock be described in the lead? (Initiated 3348 days ago on 26 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not done I put an archive box around it, in the end a source was found and wording that appears to be stable. AlbinoFerret 16:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should cite doi template be deprecated? (Initiated 3367 days ago on 7 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- That discussion has been closed. If needed, the person closing the discussion should sum up the consensus, or simply reopen the discussion if they are not able to. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wrapping a discussion between {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} isn't the same as closure. A formal closing statement of the discussion is needed per Template talk:Cite doi#Closing this RfC. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- The user who put a box around it had been part of the discussion and felt someone who hadn't argued for a specific side should write the formal closing statement. /Julle (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Putting a box on it ≠ writing a closing statement.
- Unlike most RFCs on this page, there is an actual request on the page for a formal closing statement by an uninvolved editor. Although I thought that the outcome was pretty clear, the request says that the question has been repeatedly contentious in the past, so it would probably be best to have an admin handle this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am probably the most active NAC here and I cant do it, so odds are an admin will close it. AlbinoFerret 18:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- The user who put a box around it had been part of the discussion and felt someone who hadn't argued for a specific side should write the formal closing statement. /Julle (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wrapping a discussion between {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} isn't the same as closure. A formal closing statement of the discussion is needed per Template talk:Cite doi#Closing this RfC. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to lift temporary topic-ban (Initiated 3337 days ago on 7 October 2015)? The discussion has been open for four days. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive275#Request to lift temporary topic-ban. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not done If I had seen this sooner I might have done a formal close, but the topic ban being appealed was not lifted at the time of the discussion and is set to expire in three days, so it's more or less moot at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), is this okay with you, or would you still like a formal close? Cunard (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done The consensus was clearly in favor of lifting the topic ban, and I don't think continuing unsupported sanctions is unjust no matter how little time remains.--Aervanath (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Requests for closure on Palestine-related discussions
Asking for an uninvolved editor and/or Admin to close the following related discussions: Talk:Levant#Location of State of Palestine and Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Enough with this fictional "2013 transformation of the PA to SoP" -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3347 days ago on 27 September 2015) AlbinoFerret 22:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Already done, for purposes of having this section archived. I feel like I need a {{not needed}} template, as the participants have pretty well summed up their own conclusions in a reasonable manner, and any additional closure would be moot.--Aervanath (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:State of Palestine#RFC: Restructuring Proposal (Initiated 3363 days ago on 11 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Already done Again, a discussion that doesn't really need a closure. The participants had already started collaborating on the restructuring of the articles before the RFC was even finished, and there doesn't seem to be anything for a closer to actually resolve.--Aervanath (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:PlayStation 4 system software#Merge proposal (Initiated 3349 days ago on 25 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
An uninvolved user is requested to put a stop to this back-and-forth nonsense. (Initiated 3314 days ago on 30 October 2015) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#WP:IDHT Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not done The thread appears to have died a natural death four days ago, s formal closing statement does not seem needed or helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm marking the {{initiated}} tag with "done=yes" so that this section will be archived. I concur that this does not need a formal closure.--Aervanath (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3346 days ago on 28 September 2015)
Would an experienced uninvolved editor assess the consensus at this discussion? LavaBaron (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a consensus. George Ho (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3332 days ago on 12 October 2015) AlbinoFerret 00:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Hinds_(doctor) (Initiated 31 days ago on 25 October 2024)? Thanks.Rhumidian (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:SNOW on one instances of a well-established type of article with 53 standardized intances (Category:Lists of college football statistical leaders by team) as supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I need an accurate closing rationale. --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3333 days ago on 11 October 2015) AlbinoFerret 03:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} --Errant (chat!) 15:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Closure requested here. Initiator of discussion is the article subject and is forum shopping as consensus was already reached a few days ago here and the discussion closed. Initiator of discussion is employing WP:IDHT as well. He has said he would stop continuing the discussion, but continues on. My feeling (and the feeling of the other editors at the article talk page) is that the article subject is attempting to use the article and the content he wants added as self-promotion. Content requested to be added by this individual is in regard to his latest book. Policy has been pointed out to him repeatedly. Please help with this as it is beyond tedious at this point. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 19 days ago on 6 November 2024), at least one comment was made today. AlbinoFerret 14:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{not done}} There seems no need to close it, and a request to do so here is a little tendentious (especially given that this was ironically arguably also forum-shopped at AN/I). Let the discussion run its course and be archived as normal. --Errant (chat!) 15:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the discussion will develop further, and the user in question takes long breaks between their WP:TEND activities. So I'm putting in a request for closure. --Jobrot (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Unfortunately there isn't any good consensus there due to lack of contribution. It will probably have to be resolved via a further discussion. --Errant (chat!) 15:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The 30 days will run on this one in less than an hour. There's been very little activity the past week. This one looks like it will be more fun to close than usual, and I wish I could help, but I can't until something happens to push the rate of promotions up. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} Now closed by ErrantX. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:David Cameron#Accusations (Initiated 3342 days ago on 2 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} I closed the RfC. Honestly though, a 5-0 RfC probably doesn't require "an experienced editor" to close it ... Banedon (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Obvious consensus, but I think I need someone uninvolved. George Ho (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Says resolved, boxed it up, if it needs closed they can leave a message on my talk page. AlbinoFerret 20:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kim Kardashian#Request for comments: Filmography (Initiated 3345 days ago on 29 September 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Should 'Kim K Superstar' be included in the filmography of this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#Infobox revert (Initiated 3330 days ago on 14 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elan Carr#RfC: The endorsements make this an advertisement page (Initiated 3337 days ago on 7 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Roger Waters#RfC (Initiated 3334 days ago on 10 October 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
Should this article include a section, "Accusations of anti-Semitism"?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner#Should all of the uses of cisgender be included in this article? (Initiated 3348 days ago on 26 September 2015)? An editor wrote:
Admin ping Can we have some kind of result, any result, for this RfC, please? It's been more than a month since it went up and we want to go home some time this year. :-)
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Volleyball at the 2014 Asian Games#User:Mohsen1248's dogmatic approach (Initiated 3337 days ago on 7 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} 4 days ago. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3323 days ago on 21 October 2015)
This RFC appears to be DOA. I suggested an early close four days ago, and nobody has objected, or said anything at all, since then. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
On hold There were a couple contributions today, albeit in the oppose camp. I see no harm in letting it run the full 30 days.--Aervanath (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- I suspect that was a result of being listed here, one more comment that day and nothing since. Of course you're right that there's no harm in leaving it open, but conversely there is no harm in closing it now as the supporters and indeed even the proposers of this seem to have walked away. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- For the record this was {{done}} by Mdann52 several days ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#RfC: Does "murder" presume "murderer" #2 (Initiated 3336 days ago on 8 October 2015)? Please consider the closed RfC Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Archive 4#Request for Comment: Does "murder" presume "murderer"? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bebe Rexha#American–Albanian, American–Macedonian or American? (Initiated 3341 days ago on 3 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Leschi (fireboat)#RfC: Mission Statement (Initiated 3332 days ago on 12 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Trưng Sisters#AD/CE dating (Initiated 3348 days ago on 26 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 17#Several files uploaded by User:Bedford (Initiated 3327 days ago on 17 October 2015)? Please consider the related discussion Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 19#Unused local copies of files on Commons in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Here are related discussions that should also be closed:
- Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 4#File:Clark County Courthouse Indiana 001.JPG
- Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 9#File:Bonnie Blue Barnstar.jpg
- Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 13#File:Confed Monument Russelville mid.JPG
- Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 13#File:Confed Monument Russelville far.JPG
- Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 13#File:Confed Monument Russelville.JPG
- Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 16#File:Nancy Lincoln Inn.jpg
- For consistency, these probably should all be closed by the same admin.
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 19 concluded:
Cunard (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)The problem is that the policy is unclear enough the any closer is pretty much going to have to make it up on the hoof and this discussion has not really moved that position forward. Usually, we would relist if the outcome isn't clear or feels unsatisfactory but I can't see that will improve matters either as the next close will have the same problem. I'm therefore closing this as no action but suggest to the nominator that they open an RFC to garner wider input into what our policy should be for keep local images
- All {{done}} by TLSuda. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 2#File:Natalie Gelman (2013-09-30).jpg (Initiated 54 days ago on 2 October 2024)? Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 19#Unused local copies of files on Commons might be a related discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Classification of Products by Activity
- Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015 October 26 #Classification_of_Products_by_Activity (Initiated 3339 days ago on 5 October 2015)
It seems that all the regular admins at RfD have participated in this RfD discussion, so we need a fresh pair of eyes to close it. Deryck C. 22:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Can an experienced editor assess the consensus at the above link and close the discussion? Thanks. Banedon (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Since an important point at issue is to what degree consensus of opinion can override WP:RS, I suggest that we need an experienced, disinterested and uninvolved admin to close this RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nancy Cruickshank#Edits to De-Promotionalize (Initiated 3314 days ago on 30 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Amy Tran#Request For Comment About Page Name (Initiated 3319 days ago on 25 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Establishments#RfC: Do these member articles of these categories include bridges? (Initiated 3334 days ago on 10 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Massacre of the Acqui Division#RfC: Does this article need an infobox? (Initiated 3331 days ago on 13 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Self-creation cosmology#RfC: Redirect? (Initiated 3348 days ago on 26 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cold War II#The current title (Initiated 3331 days ago on 13 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Cold War II#RfC: Accuracy of the title. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11#RfC: Year articles (Initiated 3335 days ago on 9 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#RfC: Links to deleted redirects (Initiated 3348 days ago on 26 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 2#Wales Green Party (Initiated 3311 days ago on 2 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Timotheus Canens. Sunrise (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 29#Joseph J. Allaire (Initiated 3315 days ago on 29 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Lankiveil. Sunrise (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 De-prodding several random articles without explanation (Initiated 3310 days ago on 3 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Spike Wilbury, and now archived at IncidentArchive905. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles (Initiated 3308 days ago on 5 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Müdigkeit, and now archived in IncidentArchive905. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Request to close out the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) RfC, it has expired and we do have a clear consensus established on the issue. (Initiated 3334 days ago on 10 October 2015)--E-960 (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, just a friendly FYI… still requesting to close out this RfC. --E-960 (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Although only open since 15 November, there has been large participation, and the consensus seems clear. However a prompt formal close is needed for the arbcom elections, already open, to proceed validly. DES (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- @DESiegel: {{done}} Mz7 (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced uninvolved editor assess the consensus at this RfC. Gizmocorot (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3316 days ago on 28 October 2015) AlbinoFerret 18:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rudolf Hess#Request for comment: Maser's theory (Initiated 3348 days ago on 26 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deaths in 2015#Request for Comment: Manners of death (Initiated 3346 days ago on 28 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing#RfC from Palestinian stone-throwing (Initiated 3348 days ago on 26 September 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the result of RfC on 'sister article' (Palestinian stone-throwing) be applied to this article as well? (Result:There is a consensus against inclusion of incidents without their own Wikipedia articles)
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:African Americans#RfC: What is proper number of photos for the template in this article? (Initiated 3346 days ago on 28 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:War of 1812#RfC: Should we make certain content changes in War of 1812? (Initiated 3341 days ago on 3 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Using "Vulture fund" as a page name (Initiated 3330 days ago on 14 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Please assess as a possible speedy. Legacypac (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- This doesn't meet any of the criteria for a speedy keep and there are enough people !voting to merge or delete that I don't think it should be closed early. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Can this RfC be closed. The consensus has been established and the article is already altered accordingly. However ,a formal closure would help to split this RfC with other that are unrelated. 94.28.177.61 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- On hold - The RfC has been open for less than two weeks and editors are still commenting. - MrX 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Yugoslavia#Should FR Yugoslavia's image be included in the lead (Initiated 3337 days ago on 7 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
If there is consensus, it needs accurate closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting#Photo of Harper-Mercer (Initiated 3338 days ago on 6 October 2015)? There has been no discussion since 17 October 2015. As noted at Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting/Archive 4#Result of RfC on shooter photo, the discussion was prematurely archived by the bot and later restored from the archive to the talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, someone voted on the previous day, 26 October 2015. George Ho (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I took a look at it, and it looks no consensus at this point, perhaps a few more days will get some more responses. AlbinoFerret 22:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Five days passed, AlbinoFerret. Want to take a request? --George Ho (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- I took a look at it, and it looks no consensus at this point, perhaps a few more days will get some more responses. AlbinoFerret 22:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, someone voted on the previous day, 26 October 2015. George Ho (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Request withdrawn. The image is reinserted with a caption linking to ongoing FFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not done per withdrawn request above. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- I JethroBT (talk · contribs), here is my proposed summary of the outcome:
However, my summary doesn't include an assessment of the discussion's consensus. At Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting#Image in or out during the RfC, I don't see a consensus to restore the image while the RfC (and now FfD) are ongoing. I think an assessment of the consensus would still be useful to determine whether the image should remain in the article while the FfD is taking place.As noted here, George Ho (talk · contribs) has re-inserted the image into the article. The image is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg.
Cunard (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Cunard: That sounds reasonable. I'll see if I can check the discussion on Sunday; no time tonight. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Cunard: Having reviewed Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting#Image in or out during the RfC, I'm not convinced there was enough substantive participation. Basically, there are two editors disagreeing with each other and two others voting without a valid rationale, so it's basically no consensus as you say. I'll make a close shortly, thank you for your summary statement above. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, that assessment matches AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs)'s earlier review concluding "it looks no consensus at this point". Thank you, AlbinoFerret and I JethroBT (talk · contribs), for the review and upcoming close! Cunard (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Cunard: Having reviewed Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting#Image in or out during the RfC, I'm not convinced there was enough substantive participation. Basically, there are two editors disagreeing with each other and two others voting without a valid rationale, so it's basically no consensus as you say. I'll make a close shortly, thank you for your summary statement above. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Cunard: That sounds reasonable. I'll see if I can check the discussion on Sunday; no time tonight. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- I JethroBT (talk · contribs), here is my proposed summary of the outcome:
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Papineau (electoral district)#RfC: (Policy) Using bad practices from one article to justify another and possible sock puppetry; and (Politics) Acceptability of aggregated data in "Election Results" section (Initiated 3360 days ago on 14 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced uninvolved editor assess the consensus at this RSN discussion? (Initiated 3327 days ago on 17 October 2015) Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Need a consensus to be assessed please.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of military occupations#How should Palestinian statehood be represented in this list? (Initiated 3329 days ago on 15 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:C/1980 E1#C/1980 E1 (Initiated 3347 days ago on 27 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#RfC: Change our usage of "stampede" for crowd disasters to reflect word definitions and not race, regardless of sources? (Initiated 3335 days ago on 9 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The WP:RfC tag recently expired. This is a contentious discussion, and an impartial administrator is needed to close it (preferably the entire "Domestic violence affects both genders and children" section it is a part of). (Initiated 3321 days ago on 23 October 2015) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{Close}} by Alsee. Sam Walton (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3310 days ago on 3 November 2015)
Would an admin please review the consensus and close this AfD? A non-admin closure was objected to and reverted a few days ago, since this is a contentious topic. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Easy WP:SNOW case. (Initiated 3289 days ago on 24 November 2015) Esquivalience t 21:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Should be speedily closed per WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:SNOW. The only rationale provided is demonstrably and self-evidently false. (Initiated 3286 days ago on 27 November 2015) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This AfD has gone well over the 7 day relist. (Initiated 3314 days ago on 30 October 2015) LibStar (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#Greatest ever vs. overrated (Initiated 3343 days ago on 1 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#RfC: Should this revision be retained?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Very little participation excluding involved parties. Need accurate rationale. (Initiated 3327 days ago on 17 October 2015) --George Ho (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Relisted Nov 16th. AlbinoFerret 23:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Policy based close.
- Any RFC participant is free to create a new and gloriously-NPOV biography on the "strikingly handsome, well-endowed and personable" author of the book. Any RFC participant is free to nominate that new article for deletion. Alsee (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3296 days ago on 17 November 2015) EEng (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Consensus against longevity succession boxes. Note: The listing here incorrectly says "Initiated 12 days ago". History shows the RFC was opened exactly a month ago, October 29.[6] Alsee (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Denali#RfC: Propose moratorium (Initiated 3343 days ago on 1 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - consensus was no moratorium. Onel5969 TT me 12:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Judge, whose first relisting was more than one week ago. (Initiated 3305 days ago on 8 November 2015) --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - Consensus was to redirect. Onel5969 TT me 12:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Request formal close. (Initiated 3327 days ago on 17 October 2015) NE Ent 12:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (in voluminous detail; may God have mercy upon my soul). --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Request formal close. (Initiated 3319 days ago on 25 October 2015) czar 13:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Superpower#RfC: Ottoman Empire superpower (Initiated 3337 days ago on 7 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries#RFC: Is the One Million Plan relevant to the topic of this article? (Initiated 3333 days ago on 11 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2015 Ankara bombings#International reactions (Initiated 3333 days ago on 11 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:2015 Ankara bombings#RfC: Are messages of condolence worthwhile inclusions to Wikipedia?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Consensus seems clear here, and it's the last item open on the day's discussion page. I suspect a closure hasn't happened because of the number of redirects involved. You make the ruling and I'll be happy to help with the legwork if you ping me. (Initiated 3302 days ago on 11 November 2015) --BDD (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I need an accurate rationale. (Initiated 3307 days ago on 6 November 2015) --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123#Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 124#Clarifying MOS:IDENTITY in articles in which transgender individuals are mentioned in passing
{{resolved}} Admin closure requested. These two RfCs went up on October 11. They address Wikipedia's policy toward transgender individuals, specifically which pronouns and names to use when discussing parts of their lives before their gender transition. The first addresses whether Wikipedia's current policy on biographical articles, MOS:IDENTITY, should be changed and if so to what. The second addresses whether MOS:IDENTITY should be amended to include a rule about how to refer to trans individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subject. It's been a few days since our last new comment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Both were (Initiated 45 days ago on 11 October 2024). AlbinoFerret 14:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- The discussions are still ongoing. This should be left open until they peter out. The issue comes up again and again, so this should run its course until exhausted, so we can be certain the discussion is as thorough as it practically can be this time. I'd advocate giving it at least a few more days, if not a week. It's more important to get a solid consensus this time than an expedient one. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- It had been a couple days since our last new comment when I first posted this request and it has once again been a couple days since our last comment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. Last post was 20 Nov., so it appears to have finally wound down. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, at the time I wrote that request, the last post had been on November 13. I'd add that even though a few people have commented since (one of them to ask when the thread would be closed), the threads have been open long enough to get a statistically significant group of contributors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'd suggest closing as no consensus for now. There are too many alternatives proposed and no clear consensus. We're still waiting for societal norms to settle. The American Society of Copy Editors is struggling with this, and there may be guidance in the next edition of the Associated Press Style Guide. John Nagle (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- NB: in the first RFC, option 4 was on a different question and possibly shouldn't have been rolled into the RFC; if anyone plans to judge it, note that the format of the RFC was geared to expressing support for the option you preferred, not expressing opposition to other options (though a handful of people did express opposition to things, either in boldface or not, the latter being how I expressed wariness of option 4); only a minority of voters supported option 4. -sche (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Which was why we didn't include it in any of the original drafts. Also, note that option 3 is just a placeholder. We're really dealing with three options, 1, 2, and 5 for the first proposal, and in the second, no one gave OTTHER(2) the time of day. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- NB: in the first RFC, option 4 was on a different question and possibly shouldn't have been rolled into the RFC; if anyone plans to judge it, note that the format of the RFC was geared to expressing support for the option you preferred, not expressing opposition to other options (though a handful of people did express opposition to things, either in boldface or not, the latter being how I expressed wariness of option 4); only a minority of voters supported option 4. -sche (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'd suggest closing as no consensus for now. There are too many alternatives proposed and no clear consensus. We're still waiting for societal norms to settle. The American Society of Copy Editors is struggling with this, and there may be guidance in the next edition of the Associated Press Style Guide. John Nagle (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, at the time I wrote that request, the last post had been on November 13. I'd add that even though a few people have commented since (one of them to ask when the thread would be closed), the threads have been open long enough to get a statistically significant group of contributors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. Last post was 20 Nov., so it appears to have finally wound down. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- It had been a couple days since our last new comment when I first posted this request and it has once again been a couple days since our last comment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Pinging all who have posted to this section:
@Darkfrog24: @AlbinoFerret: @SMcCandlish: @Nagle: @-sche:
It has been a full month since closure (by an administrator) of these two RfC's was requested. Since that time the RfC's have drawn only two or three more comments. I believe it is unlikely that there will be many (if any) additional comments posted to them. And, because of how long they've been listed for administrator closure with no result, I believe it is unlikely that we will get an administrator to perform the closures. Because of the importance of the subject matter of these RfC's, I believe they should not be allowed to linger undecided indefinitely. Therefore I propose that, if no administrator has acted by the middle of this month (Dec. 15, 2015), the closure request be changed to request closure by any experienced and uninvolved editor.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- The potential-to-likely problem with that is a lack of admin closure will likely not actually close the matter, but just lead to another round of rehash debate in 1-4 months. Unless it closes as "no consensus", which will also lead to another rehash. If something other than "no consensus" might plausibly come out of it, then a three-admin closure panel, as was used in the last Hillary [Rodham] Clinton RM, would be the best, as it would virtually eliminate anyone's ability to supervote. A no-consensus closure would probably be the most likely result, however, because the options available to !vote on were skewed and limiting, with too many people (myself included) only able to partially support something, with caveats. I.e., even if it closes with a consensus for something, it'll simply lead to another debate anyway, to resolve the matters that were not properly addressed this time. It should be re-done in a more open way, taking into account the criticisms of the last iteration of this debate. For one thing, the pronouns issue needs to be split out as a separate matter (either a separate RfC, or as options that reflect different approaches to the pronouns issue within a broader RfC). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{close}} one as no-consensus, the other with a (fairly!) clear consensus. Mdann52 (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- The potential-to-likely problem with that is a lack of admin closure will likely not actually close the matter, but just lead to another round of rehash debate in 1-4 months. Unless it closes as "no consensus", which will also lead to another rehash. If something other than "no consensus" might plausibly come out of it, then a three-admin closure panel, as was used in the last Hillary [Rodham] Clinton RM, would be the best, as it would virtually eliminate anyone's ability to supervote. A no-consensus closure would probably be the most likely result, however, because the options available to !vote on were skewed and limiting, with too many people (myself included) only able to partially support something, with caveats. I.e., even if it closes with a consensus for something, it'll simply lead to another debate anyway, to resolve the matters that were not properly addressed this time. It should be re-done in a more open way, taking into account the criticisms of the last iteration of this debate. For one thing, the pronouns issue needs to be split out as a separate matter (either a separate RfC, or as options that reflect different approaches to the pronouns issue within a broader RfC). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose#RfC: Should the article mention that the firearm used in the shooting is a SIG Sauer P320? (Initiated 3324 days ago on 20 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Franjo Tuđman#Request for comment about the intro (Initiated 3319 days ago on 25 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Malala Yousafzai#RFC for Forking (Initiated 3309 days ago on 4 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Socialism#RfC: What should be the topic of this article? (Initiated 3313 days ago on 31 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bill Cosby#Mention of allegations in lead sentence? (Initiated 3318 days ago on 26 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Bill Cosby#Which version to use?. Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 3#RfC: Should the allegations of sexual assault be mentioned in the lede? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Uninvolved administrator needed, though recent Sprint Cup was featured in the News. (Initiated 3295 days ago on 18 November 2015) George Ho (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ceremonial pole#RfC: Scope of article (Initiated 3312 days ago on 1 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#RfC: Slight change in first sentence of WP:PROFRINGE (Initiated 3312 days ago on 1 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2015#Same-sex marriage in the US (Initiated 3341 days ago on 3 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:2015#RfC on same-sex marriage. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sofia#RfC: Inclusion of "Crime" data (Initiated 3323 days ago on 21 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sex offender registries in the United States#Request for comments (Initiated 3323 days ago on 21 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun laws in the United States by state#Request for Comment (Initiated 3319 days ago on 25 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Improperly formed RFC with no specific question, boxed it up. AlbinoFerret 23:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Intifada#RfC: on the Third Intifada (Initiated 3317 days ago on 27 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pisco sour#RfC: Should footnote clarification in the infobox be kept? (Initiated 3314 days ago on 30 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 28#Annie Butler (Initiated 3285 days ago on 28 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrett Swasey. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)