Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 4
 | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
2012
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River#Beginning of the Hudson for List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River (initiated 1 August 2012). The question posed is: "Should the list of fixed crossings of the Hudson River state that its source is Lake Tear of the Clouds, or that its beginning is at Henderson Lake?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- This RFC appears to have been concluded and implemented by the participants with a mutually accepted third option. This request can be archived unless there are objections. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)- Okay, since the dispute was resolved, this request can be archived. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Closure requested by User:Nedim Ardoğa, discussion been going on for nearly a month. Requesting uninvolved editor. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 02:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. Let's see how long this lasts. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)- Oh well. Is three minutes a record? Reverted by Chrisrus without so much as a by-your-leave. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- The move closure was listed at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 September 13#Tenedos. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of Tea Party politicians#RfC: What is criterion for inclusion in this list? (initiated 4 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Closed just now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
A merge proposal has been in place since December 2, 2011. Requesting assessment and closure. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is a case of WP:BRD involving only two editors. It does not require formal closure at this time. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee#Time to shutter formal mediation? (initiated 21 July 2012 and listed at Template:Centralized discussion)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion was automatically archived. Reviewing the discussion, here was no consensus for an actionable close. As to the chief question, of those who directly stated a close/no close position, the close position did get more support, however substantially more editors discussed proposals for improvement or change to the process which are inconsistent with closing formal mediation. I think that leaves us with a no consensus result, and I don't see the need to disturb the archive to close the discussion no consensus. Monty845 05:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion was archived to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive/8#Time to shutter formal mediation?. In a subsection of the discussion, Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive/8#For and against lowering the bar to formal mediation, there was a consensus to lower the bar to formal mediation. That led to further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive/9 and Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy/Ratification and a change to the policy, so I agree that a close now would be unnecessary. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
MediaWiki: Spam-whitelist
The following are entries regarding the MediaWiki Spam-whitelist.
- MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Site xuarez.comoj.com and other requests
MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist has a severe backlog; the oldest entries date from January. Would an admin (or admins) review:
After reviewing an entry, please post a comment on the requester's talk page because the requester may no longer be watching the page after such a lengthy period of time. MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist/Indicators may be useful. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Could someone see if this rather fruitless discussion can be closed? It was about whether the LGBT project could install a Wikiproject banner and was corrupted be the repeated accusation that someone(?) was trying to put Cruise into a LGBT category. I'm afraid it will continue to drag on. Insomesia (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- It would be better not to close this prematurely, as there is a BLP issue at stake (i.e. whether a BLP concern overrides a WikiProject's ability to decide which articles lie within its scope). The discussion was opened on 27 August, and the RfC tag added (by me) on 29 August. [1] It should be allowed to stay open for at least a week, and longer if people are still commenting. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved this into the "Premature close requests" section. Feel free to move it out of this section either when 30 days have passed, when the discussion has become inactive, or when the consensus is in favor of a close. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thank you for looking. Insomesia (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think it may be to a point of consensus. The same user who started it keeps peppering it along, perhaps a case of I don't hear that but maybe they really feel the BLP concerns have not been addressed. I think most everyone else has moved on though. Insomesia (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved this into the "Premature close requests" section. Feel free to move it out of this section either when 30 days have passed, when the discussion has become inactive, or when the consensus is in favor of a close. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Discussion closed by Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund#RFC Ben Smith? The discussion was initiated 24 August 2012 to determine whether the article should list Smith's views about Obama. The discussion has run its course, and I would like an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus in the discussion which "adds a degree of finality to it". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done (Non-admin) Electric Catfish2 01:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion stalled since 22 August. Please can an admin assess the consensus, and close the discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Afro-textured hair#RfC: Which photos are appropriate? (initiated 2 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Regards, — Moe ε 03:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
No new discussion in days, so please close it down. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- At the 2 days mark without a new comment - and the RfC is a week old?? Um -- read the RfC normal process. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved this into the "Premature close requests" section. Feel free to move it out of this section either when 30 days have passed, when the discussion has become inactive, or when the consensus is in favor of a close. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved this up for closing, but since the discussion is now located in Archive 10, it may not require any assistance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved this into the "Premature close requests" section. Feel free to move it out of this section either when 30 days have passed, when the discussion has become inactive, or when the consensus is in favor of a close. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed and notified the main talk page. Regards, — Moe ε 03:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 21#RfC: Mention how Romney's wealth compares to past presidents?? The discussion was initiated 4 September to determine whether a mention of Romney's wealth in comparison to past presidents is appropriate for the article. The discussion has run its course, and I would like an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus in the discussion which "adds a degree of finality to it". Regardless of the discussion's result ("no consensus", "restore", or "do not restore"), a close will establish a clear status quo about whether the appropriateness of the material and avoid future edit wars about the topic. Because the RfC has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed and notified the main talk page. Regards, — Moe ε 02:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kosovo#Map removal? The discussion was initiated 13 August 2012 to determine whether to remove the current map of Kosovo. The discussion has run its course, and I would like an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus in the discussion which "adds a degree of finality to it". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Regards, — Moe ε 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers#RfC: Should the article include funding college programs promoting free enterprise? (initiated 13 July 2012)? The last comment was on 4 August 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Closed by Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 11:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War#Request for Comment II (initiated 25 July 2012)? Cunard (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's no consensus as of now, but there have been two recent additions to the discussion on September 18, so it should not be closed just yet. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- There have been five days without further comment, so the discussion should now be eligible for closure. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, closed. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Gulf War#Article needs more attention to the Iraqi side, and photographs of the initial Iraqi invasion in August 1990 and occupation (initiated 1 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Regards, — Moe ε 06:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Christian terrorism#RFC on Nagaland and Assam claims (initiated 30 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Regards, — Moe ε 07:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin please assess the desirability of an early close of this discussion, given that this has been discussed before, (most recently in March of this year) and the talk page guidelines have been specifically formulated to prevent this sort of time-wasting. St Anselm (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Regards, — Moe ε 23:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Australian Cattle Dog#Request for Comment Regarding Aggression Subsection (initiated 3 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Regards, — Moe ε 23:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The RfC header has been automatically removed since the 30 days has passed. We'd like to request an admin for consensus assessment and closure. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Regards, — Moe ε 16:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Byrne#RFC? The discussion was initiated 13 August 2012 to determine whether the article should contain the "Byrne coat of arms"? The discussion has run its course, and I would like an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus in the discussion which "adds a degree of finality to it". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Regards, — Moe ε 16:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan#Request for Comment (initiated 30 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Regards, — Moe ε 17:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep. Another anti-gay hate group RfC. We need someone experienced/uninvolved to weigh consensus on what explanation for the hate group designation is appropriate for the lead. Any help appreciated. 07:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm hoping the non-stop RfCs will end after the elections, but there's no evidence that it will. Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état#Was Mosaddegh democratically elected, or appointed prime minister? (initiated 26 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Kinda. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction#RFC: List format (initiated 22 April 2012; listed at RfC 6 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- uninvolved editor. Churn and change (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
No new discussion in days, so please close it down. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Wow -- talk about premature requests for closure -- RfC under a week old, new post today -- and it needs to be shut down? Interesting concept of process. Collect (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved this into the "Premature close requests" section. Feel free to move it out of this section either when 30 days have passed, when the discussion has become inactive, or when the consensus is in favor of a close. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved it up for possible closure: it's been nearly a month and there have been no new commenters for over a week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved this into the "Premature close requests" section. Feel free to move it out of this section either when 30 days have passed, when the discussion has become inactive, or when the consensus is in favor of a close. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
RfC has closed, an uninvolved editor/admin to add a closing decision would be appreciated, specifically if the reason why MassResistance is designated a hate group should also be included. Insomesia (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- uninvolved editor Churn and change (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Talk:List of collective nouns#RfC: Should this list include fictional and mythical collective nouns?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of collective nouns#RfC: Should this list include fictional and mythical collective nouns?? The discussion was initiated 20 August 2012 to refine the list's scope. The discussion has run its course, and I would like an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus in the discussion which "adds a degree of finality to it". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Degree of finality added :) Jafeluv (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Public Advocate of the United States#RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead?? The discussion was initiated 23 August 2012 to determine whether the Public Advocate of the United States's designation as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center should be included in the lead. The discussion has run its course, and I would like an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus in the discussion which "adds a degree of finality to it". Please note that the discussion was enclosed with closing tags by RfC proposer Insomesia (talk · contribs) after the RfC expired, but has not been summarized by an uninvolved editor. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- uninvolved editor. Churn and change (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Traditional Values Coalition#RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead?? The discussion was initiated 23 August 2012 to determine whether the Traditional Values Coalition's designation as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center should be included in the lead. The discussion has run its course, and I would like an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus in the discussion which "adds a degree of finality to it". Please note that the discussion was enclosed with closing tags by RfC proposer Insomesia (talk · contribs) after the RfC expired, but has not been summarized by an uninvolved editor. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nail placed in coffin. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:American Vision#RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead?? The discussion was initiated 23 August 2012 to determine whether the American Vision's designation as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center should be included in the lead. The discussion has run its course, and I would like an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus in the discussion which "adds a degree of finality to it". Please note that the discussion was enclosed with closing tags by RfC proposer Insomesia (talk · contribs) after the RfC expired, but has not been summarized by an uninvolved editor. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm requesting an uninvolved administrator please gauge the consensus on this RfC and then close with their findings. Thanks. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Non-admin closure by uninvolved editor. Churn and change (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has continued for over a month and a half two and a half weeks. Consensus seems pretty clear to me, but I've voted on the request. Extensive personal discussions seem to have taken over, and I think it's all time we moved on. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Not done. Discussion is still on-going. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an Admin summarize the consensus and close the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/GibraltarPediA_Options Maile66 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- uninvolved editor. Churn and change (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin summarize the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Offender9000 (initiated 25 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Ask for an edit summary when rollback in used from watchlist (initiated 18 August 2012; the last comment was 3 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- non-admin close; consensus looked quite clear. Churn and change (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Please can an admin assess the consensus, and close the discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion open for a month. Please can an admin assess the consensus, and close the discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Bushranger. MBisanz talk 22:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion open for a month. Please can an admin assess the consensus, and close the discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Bushranger. MBisanz talk 22:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Education Program extension? The discussion was initiated 20 August 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I initially closed this myself yesterday, but as another editor has objected, we'll wait for a close from an uninvolved editor. I quick close would be really helpful, since if the extension can be enabled soon it will still be useful for some of the classes doing Wikipedia assignments this academic term.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done by User:jc37. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: enable HotCat for all editors by default? The discussion was initiated 26 August 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- uninvolved editor. Churn and change (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Single-use templates? The discussion was 14 September 2012 and was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion after numerous editors opposed the proposal to add T4 (Single-use template) as a criterion for speedy deletion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done; I have closed this Request for Comment. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
This has been open for 20 days and attracted a decent amount of participation, it's more than ready for closure (I'd do it myself, but I'm involved). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the consensus is fairly clear, but implementation will involve a lot of possibly contentious page moves, so I'd rather an uninvolved admin formally close the discussion. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
This opened on September 1 and the last comment was on the 11th. The RfC is about this sentence: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." The question is whether the words "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole" should be removed or retained.
Twenty-one people have responded as of this timestamp:
- Twelve oppose the remove of those words (want to retain them): Enric Naval, Quiddity, Amatulić, Binksternet, Shenme, Darkfrog24, jc37, CBM, Peter coxhead, Beyond My Ken, JIMp, and myself.
- Nine support their removal (do not want to retain them): Noetica, 86.160.221.242, SMcCandlish, Ohconfucius, Boson, Dicklyon, Tony, Neotarf, and Mirokado.
I may post the RfC to the Village Pump to see whether fresh eyes want to comment, but in the absence of fresh input it seems ready to close. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not done There are several new participants in the RfC with comments that are dated today, including two comments that introduce arguably-new approaches to the arguments, so let's let things settle out a bit more before closing it. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Edited by Philosopher at 14:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC) to clarify that this is a "notdone," not a recommendation to wait.
- That's fine, thanks. I posted a note yesterday on the Village Pump [2] so I hope that might bring in more comments. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The bot has now removed the RFC tag; the last comment was September 19. Neotarf (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Persian gardens – Three merge requests
The Persian gardens article has three merge requests tagged on it since August 2011. Requesting assessment and closure. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note that this refers to three articles that have been proposed for merger into this article; it's not being proposed for merger into three others. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done MBisanz talk 18:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Taylor Swift discography#Can we get a consensus please?? The discussion was initiated 26 August 2012 to determine with regard to Taylor Swift what qualifies as an official single and what qualifies as a promotional single? The discussion has run its course, and I would like an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus in the discussion which "adds a degree of finality to it". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian civil war#Infobox - combatants? The discussion was initiated 2 September 2012 to determine whether to include in the infobox a section on countries which provide non-lethal/humanitarian aid. The discussion has run its course, and I would like an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus in the discussion which "adds a degree of finality to it". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Axis occupation of Vojvodina#RfC:Is this article subject notable, and if so, is it an acceptable fork of existing articles?? The discussion was initiated 12 August 2012 to determine the applicability of the guidelines Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Content forking to it. The discussion has run its course, and I would like an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus in the discussion which "adds a degree of finality to it". Regardless of the discussion's result ("no consensus", "merge/redirect", or "do not merge/redirect"), a close will establish a clear status quo about the article's state and avoid future edit wars about the topic. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- non-admin closure Churn and change (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Control (2007 film)#Join Hands and The Idiot? The discussion was initiated 13 August 2012 to determine whether a fact should be mentioned in the article's plot summary. At Talk:Control (2007 film)#RfC, Carliertwo (talk · contribs) wrote, "This is about two parts that used to be in the plot : Join Hands and The idiot. They were both present for more than 1 year but were withdrawn by the same person." I have not verified whether the information has been in the article for one year, but if this is correct, it should be considered in the close if the result is "no consensus". Is the status quo to retain the material because it has been in the article for one year, or is there another status quo? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Rename discussion, opened thirty days ago. There has been a lot of silliness on this talk page with inserting new comments in between old ones, moving entire sections around, objections to simple things like archiving five-year-old discussions, etc. I've been trying to play referee but somebody else should probably close this so I don't appear to be taking sides with regard to all the other nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Much appreciated Beeblebrox. Kaz 13:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by DrKiernan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 18:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This has been opened for too long, and it is no longer listed in WP:requested moves. Nevertheless, it is still open. --George Ho (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
There is consensus to move the article.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Non-admin closure. Closed discussion and summarized it; put in request to move at WP:RM#Technical requests. Churn and change (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Additions to the sidebar (initiated 9 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Too late. The discussion has been archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 92#Additions_to_the_sidebar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Because the RfC has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not done There is a slight hint at consensus to adding the Teahouse link (13-6), but the overall sample is small and there were still issues to discuss relative to Teahouse v. Helpdesk. Suggest a new RFC on its own page. MBisanz talk 22:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Orange fixit box on mainpage? The discussion was initiated 25 August 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#KISS image filter? The discussion was initiated 29 August 2012 and the most recent comment was 19 September 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not done auto-archived as stale and, in any event, there was no clear consensus in either direction. MBisanz talk 18:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Welcome template discussion? The discussion was initiated 16 August 2012 and asked editors to determine whether the Teahouse be listed on the standard welcome templates. It was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. The final comment in the thread was:
Input seems to have slowed down, if not actually stopped, on this discussion. It appears many people would support adding the link, but would prefer adding the Teahouse welcome to Twinkle, and of those who oppose adding the link, many support adding the Teahouse welcome to Twinkle. It may be best to start a new Rfc with three choices; Add teahouse link to Welcome, Add Teahouse welcome to Twinkle, and Do neither. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
If there is no consensus for any course of action, perhaps a closer could summarize the principles in the discussion and initiate a new RfC as outlined by KillerChihuahua. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#RFC: shall changes in beginning of sentence case be allowed in quotations? (initiated 24 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- This needs to run another few days or so, imo. I'll consider closing after it's been open for 30 days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I requested an early closure only because the discussion was archived by MiszaBot II (talk · contribs) owing to inactivity. Should it be unarchived for further discussion until 23 August 2012? Cunard (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good point. Yes, I would recommend unarchiving so that it can have 30 days. If there were greater participation, I would have no problem closing it early, but it's easy to question the legitimacy of an RfC that had low participation and was closed early. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion unarchived to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: shall changes in beginning of sentence case be allowed in quotations?. The RfC can be closed in about two days. Cunard (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion has now been archived again to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#RFC: shall changes in beginning of sentence case be allowed in quotations?. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Because the RfC has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. I asked HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) to review the discussion at User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 71#Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: shall changes in beginning of sentence case be allowed in quotations? on 26 August 2012 but he was unable to do so because he was busy. He remains busy with Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, so I think it would be fine if another user closes the discussion. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- non-admin closure Churn and change (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Er, but not using either i) or ii). I just wasted half an hour trying to figure out wtf did this come from, as it was closed in the archive and then moved to the talk page already closed. I am going to simply move it back to the archive and provide a link. Apteva (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Due to the size of the archive (over 600k) it was moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 130#RFC: shall changes in beginning of sentence case be allowed in quotations?. Apteva (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kurmaa (initiated 24 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiwatcher1 (initiated 6 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Per the request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#What happens to proposals that..., would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 92#Differentiating reference syntax in the editing window.?
A summation of the consensus before initiating a new RfC with more exposure would be helpful.
Because the RfC has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note to closing editor - An RfC has already been started on the topic (by myself) upon the recommendation of the editors at the AN discussion. The opinion of the closing editor is likely to be factored into the RfC. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Syntax differentiation in editing window. MBisanz talk 22:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Tag removed 28/9, last support/oppose comment (outside of some discussion yesterday) was 24/9. Thanks! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
has been open for quite some time now, and the discussion appears to be dead. Frietjes (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done by De728631. MBisanz talk 19:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Open for more than a week with some possible sock/meat issues. Fayedizard came in and did some major work to the article to address some concerns. I do not see any remaining delete votes at this time, but it would be better to have someone uninvolved close. Thanks in advance! --No<fo–nt color="green">uniquenames 15:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by User:Mark Arsten. [Unsigned] 20:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:List of castles in Belgium#RfC: What word should we use for châteaus/manor houses/kasteel? Does using the word 'castle' for these even make sense? (initiated 3 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 17:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Isle of Wight Academy#RFC regarding mention of segregation academy in lead paragraph, parallel version of history (initiated 8 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Non-admin closure. Churn and change (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Muhammad Iqbal#Poet of the East and Talk:Muhammad Iqbal#Poet of the East 2? Please consider making the second section a subsection of the first since the two sections are related and then hatting both sections when making a close. The discussion was initiated on 13 August 2012 to determine whether to call Iqbal "The poet of the East". The discussion has run its course, and I would like an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus in the discussion which "adds a degree of finality to it". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done and hatted as suggested. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Proposal: Character notability guidelines (initiated 3 August 2012)? There is a request to close the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Close this RfC?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Sjones23 (talk · contribs) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 17:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 September 13#Tenedos? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'd love to! ;) Drmies (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Bubbling Under. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 18:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this was closed incorrectly, because Talk:Bommarillu shows that the discussion is still open after a years time. BollyJeff | talk 16:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- ..or maybe the header at Talk:Bommarillu was not updated properly after the reassessment. I think that 'no consensus' may mean the same as 'keep' in this context. BollyJeff | talk 19:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 18:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#BLP edit warring on British Jews, particularly the section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#Proposal: User:Bus stop topic-banned from Jewish categorisation, broadly construed. After closing the discussion, consider moving it back to WP:ANI so the community is aware of the decision. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please see also John Carter (talk · contribs)'s close request at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#Requesting closure of recently archived thread regarding possible sanctions against User:Bus stop. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Open for nearly three weeks, last comment was over a week ago. Consensus seems pretty clear, but an official result would be helpful so that we can start talking implementation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears that my common consent the discussion has ended. Would an uninvolved editor have a look at the discussion to determine whether there is consensus to include the proposed text? StAnselm (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not done: Not every thread needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor, especially one that was opened only 4 days ago. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- But actually some sort of third party help to close the discussion looks to be pretty useful in this case. I don't feel I am personally neutral enough to close something about a specific anti-gay group but it would definitely be useful for someone to close it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Eraserhead1. Yes, it would help us out. StAnselm (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- But actually some sort of third party help to close the discussion looks to be pretty useful in this case. I don't feel I am personally neutral enough to close something about a specific anti-gay group but it would definitely be useful for someone to close it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fine. Done -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion has essentially ended, with majority of people, including an administrator and military history expert Nick-D, agreeing on what the definitions of combatants and supporters are. The majority support that Iran and Hezbollah should be classified as combatants in the infobox.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- As a clarification, I didn't 'agree' to anything (I specifically said I didn't have an opinion on the details of this article); my comments were limited to guidance on the common way these kinds of disputes are resolved. I'm pleased that the comments appear to have been helpful though. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done MBisanz talk 15:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Been over a week and there is a clear consensus as this is senstive subject it be better if a consensus is determined by non invovled admin and closed appiroatily so that the article can be offically mergedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Expired RfC needs formal closure, please. --RJFF (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#RfC on spelling and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#Other options
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#RfC on spelling (initiated 18 July 2012) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#Other options? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion seems to have been renamed to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#RfC on spelling. Cunard (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This move review went quiet over a week ago. Unlike, say, Tenedos, this RM didn't bring in a ton of editors, so it's not surprising that not many people have had much to say. My position is clear, so I'll just say I hope someone can close this and we can move on. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Given this is about non-admin closure issues I think it needs an admin closure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done MBisanz talk 15:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
RfC has ended. Needs admin closure. (note canvassing issues etc) IRWolfie- (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- In progress, this one isn't trivial. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I will close this today. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I will close this today. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a consensus to move. There is some discussion, but it leads to nowhere. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is an extremely contentious request for numerous reasons, and care should be taken to at least skim through the walls of text generated there. Recommend admin or crat closure only. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this must be a closure by uninivoved admin. I think there was a clear consensus to rename to Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940). ("1940" is important since there were other occupations of Baltic states). Later, one of users started an contentious discussion that became unproductive and personal. The request to rename was standing long enough for everyone to discuss and tell his opinion. If there is no consensus out there, it should be closed as "no consensus", meaning that old title remains and all participants should do something more productive. My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I know I have completely ignored you advice here, but what difficult discussions need is someone good to close them. Plenty of admins find it extremely difficult to close any controversial discussions and resort to closing things inappropriately as no consensus which just drags disputes on and on rather than resolving them. We need to encourage the widest possible body of editors who are happy to close a controversial and difficult request as possible - whether or not they are technically admins.
- Of note I haven't read the discussion yet so I have no idea whether or not this discussion should be closed as a consensus or not. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- The level of respect and general "clout" that admins carry makes their decisions "stick" much better, and so admin closures are generally more satisfactory for the parties involved. NACs leave the door open for "but that discussion wasn't closed by an admin" counter-discussions, and I'm hoping to minimise the trench warfare on the talkpage. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- On the other hand there aren't exactly a large number of admins with the time to handle difficult disputes - see the lack of volunteers for the abortion closure below. Additionally if someone challenges the response, admin closure or not, then I (or any other closer) should try and explain their closure in more detail - if the person continues to not accept the closure then it seems perfectly reasonable for them to raise an objection here or to another appropriate venue for a triumvirate to re-evaluate the closure. That shouldn't be a big deal - we all make mistakes regardless of whether one is or is not an admin. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- The level of respect and general "clout" that admins carry makes their decisions "stick" much better, and so admin closures are generally more satisfactory for the parties involved. NACs leave the door open for "but that discussion wasn't closed by an admin" counter-discussions, and I'm hoping to minimise the trench warfare on the talkpage. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have volunteered to do it, but I am not an admin - if an admin wishes to do so instead jump in before Friday. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I read it and think it's an easy close, but I ain't touching it with a 100 meter pole. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this must be a closure by uninivoved admin. I think there was a clear consensus to rename to Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940). ("1940" is important since there were other occupations of Baltic states). Later, one of users started an contentious discussion that became unproductive and personal. The request to rename was standing long enough for everyone to discuss and tell his opinion. If there is no consensus out there, it should be closed as "no consensus", meaning that old title remains and all participants should do something more productive. My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done by User:Anthony Appleyard. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This RfC opened on September 1 and was closed on 4 October by Nathan Johnson after a request here. Noetica has twice reverted the closure, asking that an admin close it, so this is a request that an admin endorse or overturn Nathan's closure.
The RfC was about this sentence: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." The question is whether the words "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole" should be removed or retained.
Thirty people responded:
- Thirteen supported the removal of those words: Noetica, 86.160.221.242, SMcCandlish, Ohconfucius, Boson, Dicklyon, Tony, Neotarf, Mirokado, Br'er Rabbit, 128.127.107.10, 87.79.226.106, and Rreagan007.
- Seventeen opposed the removal: Enric Naval, Quiddity, Amatulić, Binksternet, Shenme, Darkfrog24, jc37, CBM, Peter coxhead, Beyond My Ken, JIMp, Resolute, Hiding, 87.112.91.134, Jayron32, WhatamIdoing, and myself.
Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- See my explanations and corrections, posted just now toward the end of the sprawling RFC section (not necessarily within the material that SlimVirgin has recently sought to close off). Technically, the RFC was closed already by the BOT. That, according to WP:RFC, is one way RFCs come to an end. I acted in good faith, where the proposer of the RFC had allowed it from the start to descend into disorder – needing attention from Neotarf, a far less experienced editor, to fix what SlimVirgin would not. And I too had to remedy the continuing irregularities, to keep the thing transparent, fair, and navigable.
- ☺
- NoeticaTea? 23:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- The point behind WP:CLOSING a discussion is to get an outside editor to produce a summary of the consensus (if any). All the bot does is stop listing the discussion on the central pages. People post here when they want an uninvolved admin to summarize the discussion and determine whether consensus was reached. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just pointing out that the reason that this is the reason no one wants to close discussions. They spend several hours reading the discussion, summarizing it, only to get reverted by one of the ideologues. Close at your peril. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 10:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I was the nom for the split, and I won't object if this is closed as "no split." Discussion ended more than two weeks ago; in fact all discussion on that talk page is at least ten days old; quite a surprise. Requesting uninvolved editor for the closure. Churn and change (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
These articles hardly get any views, so I don't expect any more input into these discussions. I tried to move them manually by switching the article with the redirect page containing the desired title, but Guest2625 recommended that we should save the history of edits, and ask an admin to sort this out. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think the right place is WP:RM#Technical moves since nobody is contesting the move. It is typically faster too. Churn and change (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done an admin has fixed this. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Can I get this discussion closed? I request that they properly give a source that actually indicated that Paramount's distribution contract(s) were done, but they kept on giving articles that just implied it and then they edit warred over it. A source turned up that actually supported it, so I edit the article to support their position. Lord Sjones23 continues his edit war against me and reverses my edit using the proper source then reports me for edit war (as per above). I some how get a warring from AN/EW dispite clearly supporting a proper source. They continue to flog details at the AN/EW and file a RFC. I have told them multiple times that their side prevailed. As I write this Lord Sjones23 claims that I am not being civil, creating a battleground, and that I am about winning at the RFC. How many times to I have to tell them that they (and the AN/EW administrator) now have a source that supports their position. I am tired of their continued personal attacks that proven unfounded. I don't know any more how I can get them to conprended this. --Spshu (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not done the formal RFC was just opened, give it time. and please STOP YELLING IN ALL CAPS IN YOUR REMARKS. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Overwhelming support to change the title of the article. Requesting someone to close the discussion and move the article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not done While your description is accurate, the discussion was just opened yesterday. Not seeing anything urgent that would require it to be closed so soon. Give it a few more days, maybe a week. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Needs a consensus now. --George Ho (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Geo Swan and AfDs? There are three proposals there: (i) Proposal to slow down a bit at AfD, (ii) Proposal to topic ban Geo Swan, and (iii) Proposal to refer to Arbcom. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- The whole thread was moved on September 5 to a subpage at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/GeoSwan and AFDs. There were two further comments that day, but nothing since then. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link to the discussion. In addition to assessing the proposals, a findings of fact and advice like TParis (talk · contribs) provided at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#TenPoundHammer, AfD and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT would be very helpful in summarizing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Given this involves user conduct I think it needs an admin closure. It does seem that one would be appreciated though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
ResolvedThis RfC opened on September 1 and was closed on 4 October by Nathan Johnson after a request here. Noetica has twice reverted the closure, asking that an admin close it, so this is a request that an admin endorse or overturn Nathan's closure.
The RfC was about this sentence: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." The question is whether the words "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole" should be removed or retained.
Thirty people responded:
- Thirteen supported the removal of those words: Noetica, 86.160.221.242, SMcCandlish, Ohconfucius, Boson, Dicklyon, Tony, Neotarf, Mirokado, Br'er Rabbit, 128.127.107.10, 87.79.226.106, and Rreagan007.
- Seventeen opposed the removal: Enric Naval, Quiddity, Amatulić, Binksternet, Shenme, Darkfrog24, jc37, CBM, Peter coxhead, Beyond My Ken, JIMp, Resolute, Hiding, 87.112.91.134, Jayron32, WhatamIdoing, and myself.
Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- See my explanations and corrections, posted just now toward the end of the sprawling RFC section (not necessarily within the material that SlimVirgin has recently sought to close off). Technically, the RFC was closed already by the BOT. That, according to WP:RFC, is one way RFCs come to an end. I acted in good faith, where the proposer of the RFC had allowed it from the start to descend into disorder – needing attention from Neotarf, a far less experienced editor, to fix what SlimVirgin would not. And I too had to remedy the continuing irregularities, to keep the thing transparent, fair, and navigable.
- ☺
- NoeticaTea? 23:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- The point behind WP:CLOSING a discussion is to get an outside editor to produce a summary of the consensus (if any). All the bot does is stop listing the discussion on the central pages. People post here when they want an uninvolved admin to summarize the discussion and determine whether consensus was reached. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just pointing out that the reason that this is the reason no one wants to close discussions. They spend several hours reading the discussion, summarizing it, only to get reverted by one of the ideologues. Close at your peril. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Noting here that Nathan's closure has been restored by Regent'sPark, [3] so this is resolved. Many thanks to everyone who helped out, especially Nathan and Regent'sPark. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates discussion
There is a discussion at WP:ITN/C requesting that the Paddy Roy Bates story be removed from Template:In the news. Obviously, one can look for himself/herself, but it seems quite clear that there is consensus for it to be removed; even the nominator for the story thinks it should be yanked. Unfortunately, many of the admins familiar with the section (e.g. myself) commented in the discussion and so it may come across as improper for one of them to make the requested change (we really don't need another protracted discussion about that). Can someone please look at the discussion and act as requested? If you're uncomfortable/not familiar with editing Template:In the news, you could alternatively state that you agree there is consensus to pull the item, and I could act on your behalf. Thanks... -- tariqabjotu 03:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Canvassing is "considered inappropriate" and the above statement is just that. You've practically invited an admin to do what you want but what you won't do yourself due to fearing the consequences of a discussion. Should the admin not be able to decide for themselves? You've even stated your willingness to act on their behalf! --86.40.101.112 (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fine. If this is how you're going to behave, if even this perfectly reasonable action is inappropriate to you, and if you're going to hold "fear" over my head, fine. I removed it. Any admin is free to put it back for the sole purpose of removing it again, but it's done. Should anyone -- especially you -- feel compelled to open up a discussion about how destructive my action was, please be so kind as to not point me to it, as I will not participate in such time-wasting. -- tariqabjotu 04:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- – Endorsed pull decision as procedural formality. Churn and change (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Resolved
This discussion is more than three weeks old, and it has been more than a week since the last comment. A couple days ago I suggested posting a request here, and received no objections. StAnselm (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This discussion happened a while ago and there is currently a dispute going on about whether we can utilize this proposed feature yet. Can an uninvolved admin determine whether there is consensus for this to be implemented? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If possible, please de-archive and restore to WT namespace to give other editors a chance to contribute. Doesn't seem fair to close and implement an archived discussion. --IP98 (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- This has been voted on at least four times since May 2012, each with strong support. Here with an official RfC, 18 to 11 with some of the 11 opposes being partial: [4], here in May 2012: [5], here informally in August 2012:[6], and here to close and implement: [7]. No further canvass is necessary, the change should be implemented according to unending and broad consensus. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I hope I'm in the right place for this.
A debate over when, if ever, country article leads should inlcude mention of the European sovereign-debt crisis started at Talk:Greece#Intro and Economic crisis. The consensus seemed to be that it was a multi-national/article issue best discussed at a WikiProject level, so I attempted to move the discussion to WT:EU#The sovereign-debt crisis. Regardless of my own opinions, I wanted the issue settled by consensus (which ever way that may've been). Unfortunately, the discussion has become dominated by sparring between a few editors and there's no way to tell when it will stop.
I feel responsible for dragging across multiple talk pages. It's my hope this discussion can be asses, possibly summarized, and closed quickly to avoid further disruption to other users.
—Sowlos (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Dr.K. (talk · contribs) Armbrust The Homonculus 23:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion has essentially ended. Overwhelming support to move the article. Requesting someone to close the discussion and move the article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion has effectively ended, since the page has already been moved. ZappaOMati 23:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Running for a month, please close.--v/r - TP 02:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Requesting closure on this RfC. It has ran for four weeks and the last comment was five days ago. Many thanks – MrX 15:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Talk:MassResistance#RfC: Should the anti-gay hate group designation in the lead be explained at all?
Requesting closure of this RfC. Discussion has been open for 19 days, with no new comments in the past 15 days. Thanks - MrX 20:04, 22 October 2012 (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.
This is a proposal regarding the use of voting mechanics as part of closing the RFC whose talk page it's on. Requesting a neutral party with a strong grasp of consensus policy to close it. Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. The discussion has been open for 8 days with a grand total of 5 editors participating. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is related to a case that has been going on for two years and has been to Arbcom. Additionally there was a lot of complaining in the last RFC about the voting system. This one should be straightforward, but it does need a third-party closure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you anticipate problems, perhaps you should seek input from a wider audience. Maybe {{cent}} or WP:VP. Getting someone uninvolved to close something that almost no one knows about it, and thus are unable to comment about it, is pointless. All the request for closure is doing is trying to get an air of legitimacy for a decision reached by 5 people that will affect the entire encyclopedia. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for suggesting {{cent}}, I've listed the RFC there. Other than that, though, your comments are kind of amazingly obnoxious. For your information and edification, I'll mention that this RFC has had months of discussion at the talk page of its predecessor RFC, has had community notification at Talk:Support for the legalization of abortion, Talk:Opposition to legal abortion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism, has had multiple threads touching on it at the administrator's noticeboard, and has had a watchlist notification request that, despite timely submission and support from multiple editors, has gone nowhere and took more than a week to even garner a snide, dismissive response like yours. So you can kind of take the implications that the people who can be bothered to participate in this RFC are trying to hold a star chamber proceeding and shove them. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The first RFC was certainly given as wide an audience as possible. The problem is that the community, and quite frankly the arbitration committee, is divided on this matter.
- If you can get a proper close for some of these less important points you are more likely to reach an overall conclusion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- What the hell is wrong with seeking legitimacy, anyway? Yes, we would like a legitimate neutral third-party close on an important, challenging point on an RFC that may affect the entire encyclopedia, because that will help the process achieve some kind of success. This is an indictment? —chaos5023 (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Chaos5023, your rational outrage has gotten us this far, whereas without it this would probably have dribbled off into something inconclusive long since, so I hesitate to ask you to calm down. But maybe, pretend to calm down?
- Anyway: if the response is that it's premature to ask for closure, and it would be better after some period of time, that's not what I wanted to hear, but OK. If that's the answer, then please be clear. If it's that the issue is too complex and needs to be explained more clearly, well then, you need to be clear about what it is that you don't understand. And if it's just general negativity, then ... well, I don't want to be flying off the handle too, so I guess I'll stop there. Homunq (࿓) 23:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I understand how draining this debate must be, and the desire to settle it for good. I can see what you are aiming at with this annex to the original RFC, but Wikipedia's overall WP:CONSENSUS guidelines trump this. A group of editors cannot decide among themselves how their discussion should be closed and ask an RFC-closer to respect that decision. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide for a similar situation. RFC-closers are bound by WP:CONSENSUS guidelines which talk of votes and weight of arguments and how to balance the two in reaching a conclusion on consensus. So, let us say I close this annex with consensus on "using votes"; the closer of the original RFC would still have to go by WP:CONSENSUS and may well decide the minority opinion is the consensus. The only way to do this is to bring this annex for this specific RFC to village pump, get overall consensus on the annex, and then point the original-RFC closer to that consensus. The other alternative is to just point the original-RFC closers to the annex discussion, without commenting on it as a super-guideline; it is short enough you can probably do without a summary. Churn and change (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- That should totally be registered as an argument on the proposal itself. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if my reply above came off as obnoxious. I certainly didn't intend for that response. I do understand why you are trying to be extra thorough and have all the Is dotted and Ts crossed. But my point was basically what Churn and change said above. You can come to a consensus amongst yourselves on how the talk page about how the RfC should be closed, but until there is a legitimate widely discussed consensus of non-involved people, then the closer will still be bound by the WP:CONSENSUS guideline. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- That should totally be registered as an argument on the proposal itself. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I understand how draining this debate must be, and the desire to settle it for good. I can see what you are aiming at with this annex to the original RFC, but Wikipedia's overall WP:CONSENSUS guidelines trump this. A group of editors cannot decide among themselves how their discussion should be closed and ask an RFC-closer to respect that decision. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide for a similar situation. RFC-closers are bound by WP:CONSENSUS guidelines which talk of votes and weight of arguments and how to balance the two in reaching a conclusion on consensus. So, let us say I close this annex with consensus on "using votes"; the closer of the original RFC would still have to go by WP:CONSENSUS and may well decide the minority opinion is the consensus. The only way to do this is to bring this annex for this specific RFC to village pump, get overall consensus on the annex, and then point the original-RFC closer to that consensus. The other alternative is to just point the original-RFC closers to the annex discussion, without commenting on it as a super-guideline; it is short enough you can probably do without a summary. Churn and change (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you anticipate problems, perhaps you should seek input from a wider audience. Maybe {{cent}} or WP:VP. Getting someone uninvolved to close something that almost no one knows about it, and thus are unable to comment about it, is pointless. All the request for closure is doing is trying to get an air of legitimacy for a decision reached by 5 people that will affect the entire encyclopedia. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is related to a case that has been going on for two years and has been to Arbcom. Additionally there was a lot of complaining in the last RFC about the voting system. This one should be straightforward, but it does need a third-party closure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
So should we then just go back to the arbitration committees statement that the discussion has to be closed as a vote?
Obviously - and very predictably - if we don't do that the losing side will just claim that a vote is unacceptable when it looks like they are going to lose.
Or are we going to find admins will balls of steel who will close 55-45 as a normal consensus? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin assess consensus at this RfC on the username for Victuallers? The discussion has been open for 25 days with no comments in the last 22 days. Note that this RfC was opened by the editor in question due an objection by an anonymous user claiming Victuallers has a COI. This claim is due to the fact that the user created a company with the same name that is involved in consulting work in coordination with Wikipedia. Thanks a bunch, I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Anybody planning to close this should probably read this piece first, since absolutely no mention of this, to my mind, core issue is made in the thread except at the very end. Churn and change (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
This deletion discussion has been going on for almost two weeks without anyone suggesting keeping. Given the BLP/hoax issues involved I would ask it be closed off ASAP. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- closed Samsara (FA • FP) 18:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Since I closed fcite, which is closely related, I think it would be best for another admin to close this one. In addition to the fact that I seem to be closing about 95% of the discussions at TfD, so it would be great to have some help with the less obvious ones to avoid any bias that I might have in how I read the discussions. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have wound down, so it's a good time to assess if the edit has consensus. This issue involved the edit made here reverted here. In the discussion, there are many opinions going around but what seems to be to be missing are actual policy-based objections to the edit. Since merely showing up and saying no doesn't carry weight per WP:CONSENSUS this suggests to me that the edit has consensus ("The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."). However, as one of the editors in the thread contests my right to unilaterally declare this so, I'm asking for an uninvolved, experienced editor to have a look and close the discussion. If the finding is no consensus, it seems likely weäll proceed to more formal dispute resolution. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wish the situation were as simple as the foregoing might indicate. The discussion has been quite lengthy and quite convoluted. I would like to point out here that the section linked to, Talk:Jerusalem#Revert_by_Tritomex, is part of a running discussion that includes other sections and occupies much of the article's present talk page. Because of that, I believe a reading of, in particular, Talk:Jerusalem#Better_wording, and its subsections, and perhaps other parts of the page, is essential for any evaluation of whether the edit in question has or lacks consensus. Such additional readings not only provide context, but are to a large extent integral parts of the same discussion, subdivided for convenience. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. By the same token, closing the discussion should include closing the "Better wording" portions as well. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hertz, are you sure the other discussion relates to the same edit? --Dailycare (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Basalisk (talk · contribs) Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. Requesting someone come along and look at the above RFC and make a determination on the result. Thanks. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust The Homonculus 23:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 26#Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 26#Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986–present) players
Hopefully I'm in the right section for this. I've been waiting a couple weeks now for these to get settled, especially after Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) players was merged too early. You see, the Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC players which featured players from 2009-10 until the MLS category was merged, was nominated to be merged to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) players.
And of course I made my nomination with the Vancouver MLS category clear, that the Vancouver MLS category would be moved to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC players pending the other nominations. Which meant that, if the other nominations weren't moved, then the Vancouver MLS category shouldn't be moved. The reason I've nominated these cats to be moved was because Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC players should only feature players from the MLS team that began in 2011 and not redirected. We haven't had any recent responses lately, but by the look of things, I think the rest of the Vancouver Whitecap categories that were should be merged and if my nomination is rejected, then we got some problems here. – Michael (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Mike Selinker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust The Homonculus 09:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
ResolvedI think someone gives a 'clean' verdict and then it is courtesy blanked. Been open ages and want it closed. Thx. Rcsprinter (babble) @ 16:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should ask someone who already works at CCI? I look at it and don't really know what I'm seeing. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- The procedure for this is at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Instructions, and it requires an admin or a CCI clerk to close the investigation report, move it manually to the archive (which is not indexed by search engines) and then courtesy blank it. There is just one CCI clerk, who, with over 150,000 edits, is a very busy person. I am cross-posting this to the CCI talk page, but it looks inactive. Churn and change (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't quite complete yet. I'll try and take care of the last outstanding issue today, and I'll then tag it for closure. - Bilby (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've finished the last one and tagged it as complete. So it just needs to be "clerked" now. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. MER-C 05:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Done.The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Background: The Monty Hall problem page is the location of the longest-running content dispute on Wikipedia. There have been 1.3 million words posted to the talk page over a period of ten years without any resolution. It is an observable phenomena that multiple editors with backgrounds in science or math have joined the discussion and concluded that there is a consensus for their position, only to be followed by another editor with a science or math background coming to the same conclusion concerning a completely different position.
This has been to all or most of our noticeboards and venues for mediation, including arbcom. This particular RfC was specifically tailored so that the two most active disputants[8] agreed that the two proposals matched their positions, and they both volunteered without being asked to withdraw from the dispute if the RfC showed a consensus for the other position.
Just closing this RfC with a quick count is likely to result in another ten years and another million words of arguing. What we really need in this case is for an uninvolved closer to carefully review the RfC (and perhaps some of the spillover into the MHP talk page) and state explicitly whether either of the main disputing parties has a consensus, and how this applies to how all involved should behave going forward. It might be useful if, after the closer writes up the summary, one or more uninvolved editors add a brief statement of concurrence just so everyone is clear about the result. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- This certainly needs a triumvirate close. I'm happy to be one of the three. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would be willing to assess consensus here, and will be in contact with Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs) through this process. Could we get one more? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I will bite. Where do you want to discuss? Churn and change (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've made a page for central discussion here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll get to it as soon as I can. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've made a page for central discussion here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I will bite. Where do you want to discuss? Churn and change (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Remaining sections need to be closed before the election begins. --Rschen7754 20:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Now only this section needs closure. And maybe summation closure, like last year. Armbrust The Homonculus 08:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed.--v/r - TP 19:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Needs an uninvolved closure, despite summary. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved user assess consensus at this (read: my) RfC on whether the editing window should include functionality to differentiate syntax? This RfC has run its full 30 days and has been delisted. Note that there are three separate questions asked, all with different levels of participation. I am intending to bring this proposal to bugzilla after consensus has established. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Now that DYK-GA proposal is closed, this separate GA in the Main Page thing must be closed, as well. --George Ho (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done Why anyone thought having two contradictory proposals at the same time is a good idea is beyond me - closed as no consensus as I can't see anything else useful that can be done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Louis Barthou#"This claim has been disputed as propaganda" (initiated 2 September 2012)? The RfC asked whether the fabricated story about the Barthou's death be removed from the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope#RfC: proposed move (initiated 5 September 2012)? The discussion is about whether Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope should be renamed to Lady Hope story. If there is a consensus for a rename, an admin will be needed to enact it since Lady Hope story has two edits to it. Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done - jc37 08:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jonah Falcon#RfC (initiated 6 September 2012)? The discussion is about the reversion an edit referencing the only existing physical proof of Jonah Falcon's penis size. Insomesia (talk · contribs) enclosed the discussion with archive templates but did not add a closing summary because he had participated in the discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Orgastic potency#Merge (initiated 17 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International System of Units/Archives/08/2013#Mention US status in everyday life? (initiated 28 August 2012)? The discussion is about whether to "mention that the use of SI units is secondary to United States customary units in the everyday life of ordinary people". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:India#Fact sheet merger proposal (initiated 22 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bethel University (Tennessee)#Request for Comment: Library Section regarding whether the library section (still in the article) should be removed (initiated 30 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:IMG Academy#RfC on merging various IMG Academy articles (initiated 30 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:European Union#Definition of the European Union (initiated 4 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita#Comment and Edit Request (initiated 15 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Karaköy#Merge Galata here (initiated 30 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Blackwater Baghdad shootings#RFC: List of the names of those killed (initiated 2 October 2012)? The question posed was: "Do the names of the victims belong into this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hurricane Nadine (2012)#RfC: Should it be merged (initiated 25 September 2012)? The discussion was enclosed in close templates by Yellow Evan (talk · contribs), but he didn't add a summary (though his edit summary was to keep the article) and I'm not sure if he would be considered uninvolved given his commentary in the discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic engineering#Muntzing (initiated 24 September 2012)? The discussion is about whether to include Muntzing in the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Artificial intelligence#Merger proposal. The discussion is about whether synthetic intelligence should be merged to artificial intelligence. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Long War Journal#RfC on "Controversies" section (initiated 27 August 2012)? The discussion is about whether the controversies section should be removed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Donnie Darko#Request for Comment (initiated 4 September 2012)? The question posed is: Should the article contain a section relaying the content of the fictional book "The Philosophy of Time Travel"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Disco Demolition Night#RfC: Should the claims of racism and homophobia be included in the lead?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disco Demolition Night#RfC: Should the claims of racism and homophobia be included in the lead? (initiated 18 September 2012)? The discussion was closed by The Garbage Skow (talk · contribs) who had participated in the discussion. A summary of the findings of fact and the consensus will be helpful to participants. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Censorship in Islamic societies#Request for Comment (initiated 17 September 2012)? The questions posed were:
1) does this article require the use of solely academic sources; 2) does the article require explicit use of the word censorship in the source; and 3) is a restricted definition of censorship to be used, i.e. only by governmental agencies, or is the definition used in the Wikipedia article correct, where censorship may be by the government, media, private groups, or individuals?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1960 in film#Request for comment about replacing top ten films charts with revisionist rankings. (initiated 18 September 2012)? The question posed was:
Should historic charts on 1960 in film and its family of articles ranking the most successful films of the year be replaced by a user-constructed chart that converts the theatrical rental to box-office gross using a selective process by dropping any films where the gross is unavailable?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana#Category (initiated 3 October 2012)? The question posed was:
Considering that this redirect links to a list of all the songs recorded by Hannah Montana, should it be placed in Category:Lists of songs by recording artists? Is Hannah Montana a stage name, or just fictional?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Twister (game)#In popular culture (initiated 30 September 2012)? The discussion is about whether to remove or retain the popular culture section. Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hunger strike#RfC on inclusion criteria and/or creating a separate list (initiated 11 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: does author of a citation need to provide means for others to access cited material (initiated 19 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: do remarks by university chaplains and professors found in MIT's the Tech university newspaper pass WP:SPS (initiated 19 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters#RfC (Request for Comments) about "Titanic" comment (initiated 25 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Steeler Nation#RfC: Inclusion of material from Phoenix New Times (initiated 14 September 2012)? The questions posed are:
1. Are the Phoenix New Times generally and PNT editor Martin Cizmar specifically considered reliable sources?
2. Are the terms "hillbilly" and "white trash" (cited to a newspaper) so vulgar or obscene that they violate WP's policy onoffensive material?
3. Is material that criticizes an NFL fanbase using those terms worthy of inclusion on a page about that fanbase?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Outing#Rewording of lead (initiated 20 September 2012)? The question posed was:
Should the lead be broadened in order to include the examples already listed in the article?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chalcedon Foundation#RfC: Should the explanation of why the Chalcedon Foundation has been designated a hate group be omitted from the lead? (initiated 21 September 2012)? The discussion was enclosed with archive templates by Insomesia (talk · contribs), who started the discussion, but the consensus has not been assessed. Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Caribbean Medical University#2011 stabbing incident section (initiated 21 October 2012)? The question posed was: "Should the 2011 stabbing incident section remain in the article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done. →Σσς. (Sigma) 08:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies#RFC:Position on homosexuality (initiated 4 October 2012)? The discussion concerns the wording of the "Position on homosexuality" section. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Remove the section titled "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required" (initiated 30 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 94#Allowing users to keep private drafts of their work (initiated 15 September 2012)? Please note your close at bugzilla:37992 after you have closed the discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done both. Armbrust The Homonculus 11:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus on the RfC for the page's new design is fairly clear, and there has been no discussion in over a week. David1217 What I've done 00:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Contents#RfC: Redesign of Help:Contents (initiated 8 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done Armbrust The Homonculus 02:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Armbrust. David1217 What I've done 04:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Notability#RfC (initiated 5 October 2012)? The question posed was: "Should this template's documentation page be modified to say a notability tag cannot be added to an article that has survived AfD?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done - jc37 08:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved, experienced editor please come in take a look at this move request (initiated 10 October 2012)? There is allot there and it needs to be thoroughly read through to divine what the outcome is. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- It obviously needs to be merged with some tomato sauce and a tender but flaky crust and baked at a high temperature for about fifteen minutes... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer a thick, bready crust President Zaphod. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 13:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- It obviously needs to be merged with some tomato sauce and a tender but flaky crust and baked at a high temperature for about fifteen minutes... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done. (Also, Wikt:allot) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This RfC needs to be assessed and closed to become part of the Education Working Group recommendation for the Wikimedia Foundation. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- – Churn and change (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Resolved
- Actually, would someone else mind taking a look? Some people have commented that tbe close was improper. --Rschen7754 18:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reclosed by SilkTork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust The Homonculus 04:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, would someone else mind taking a look? Some people have commented that tbe close was improper. --Rschen7754 18:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:File names#RfC: Filenames in non-Latin scripts (initiated 11 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done. De728631 (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Citation needed#Show reason in tooltip (initiated 18 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Changed the
|ans=to no. It needs an admin to implement the changes. Armbrust The Homonculus 04:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)- Implemented by MSGJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homonculus 19:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Religion in Brazil#Merger Proposal (initiated 6 September 2012)? The discussion is about whether Irreligion in Brazil should be merged into Religion in Brazil. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Gibraltar, again (initiated 25 October 2012, listed at Template:Centralized discussion, and archived as being inactive)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done for now at least. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#RFC (initiated 3 October 2012)? The discussion is about whether to change the "blocked users section". Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This was opened as an RM on 22 September. The originator added an RfC tag on 28 September. There have been only three !votes since 5 October, and only one (added today) since 15 October. This is a perennial discussion going back to 2002 and beyond. On this occasion I think everything that needs to be said has long since been said. It's time to close it for another year. Scolaire (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion is still open. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'd love to help, but as per my extensive involvement with the China move request I don't think I'm neutral enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- There were new comments added in the last few days. Let's give this one a little longer. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- 32 out of a total of 41 !votes were added before 5 October, i.e. one month ago and within thirteen days of the RfC opening. Leaving it open only encourages the dripwise addition of !votes, which perpetuates the vicious circle. I don't believe that a few contributors coming late to the party are going to affect the outcome anyway. Scolaire (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Now closed. Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)