Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 20
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genesis P-Orridge#RFC: is the idiosyncratic use of s/he and h/er acceptable in this article? (Initiated 3297 days ago on 3 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kuwait Airways#RFC: Should a threat of legal action by the Secretary of Transportation against the airline be included in the article? (Initiated 3287 days ago on 13 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Economic history#PRIMARYTOPIC (Initiated 3309 days ago on 22 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}--meaning, in this case, there really is nothing to close: the proposal was already a bit unclear, and there are some suggestions to tweak the article. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Liberland#RFC: Infobox or not? (Initiated 3296 days ago on 4 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Azov Battalion#Far-right, neo-Nazi as result of WP:NPOV rule ignoration (Initiated 3306 days ago on 25 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)#RfC: Genres (Pop, rock) (Initiated 3313 days ago on 18 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin assess this merger proposal for closure? It's been open about a month and a half. LavaBaron (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{not done}} 2 people is not enough for a consensus. More participation is required. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3273 days ago on 27 November 2015)
Can somebody please close this? Been open since November 27. nableezy - 22:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} Sure thing, Nableezy. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Could an experienced discussion closer please close Talk:The Legend of Zelda (1986 video game)#Requested move 01 November 2015? There have been no new comments added to this discussion since late November. Steel1943 (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3299 days ago on 1 November 2015) – Steel1943 (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Aervanath. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Could an experienced discussion closer please close Talk:The Legend of Zelda (1986 video game)#Requested move 01 November 2015? There have been no new comments added to this discussion since late November. Steel1943 (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3299 days ago on 1 November 2015) – Steel1943 (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Aervanath. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Muammar Gaddafi#RfC on Lede Image (Initiated 3296 days ago on 4 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:War in Donbass#RfC: Combatants (Initiated 3303 days ago on 28 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:McLaren MP4-30#RFC: Use of images (Initiated 3307 days ago on 24 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain#RfC - Character reception before release (Initiated 665885 days ago on 26 September 0201)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} Compromise was reached on talk page, no formal close needed. NE Ent 23:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This has been open since January. Strikes me as an obvious close but best be someone uninvolved to keep it all above board as somewhat controversial. (Initiated 3264 days ago on 6 December 2015)Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Gary Cooper#recent edits (Initiated 3314 days ago on 17 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
"Closure by admin requested for WP:BLPN discussion BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once". (Initiated 3301 days ago on 30 October 2015) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- When this is closed it definitely needs to be closed in tandem with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers. I've read through a lot this morning and have no idea what to do; there's no strong consensus to do anything (i.e. there is zero agreement on what wording to actually use) but there is pretty strong consensus that the current situation is not sufficient for BLP. There are a lot of other factors at play here too; like how some BLP's are badly categorised anyway (which the rename may have compounded). My feeling is that we're I to close this I'd do a no-consensu o what to call the category, delete the cat under WP:BLPCAT and open a neutral RFC incorporating all of the main suggestions for category naming and inclusion criteria, to resolve this in detail. --Errant (chat!) 10:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for mentioning that parallel discussion. In addition to the immediate issue, there was also a procedural disagreement about whether WP:BLPCAT claims should be decided as a BLP Incident or as a Category for Discussion. I don't know if there is an answer to that jurisdictional question but it may matter since the the two conversations had starkly different consensuses. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- IIRC, policy-based decisions trump "content decisions" and suggest that the CfD was the latter, and the BLP/N decision the former. Collect (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for mentioning that parallel discussion. In addition to the immediate issue, there was also a procedural disagreement about whether WP:BLPCAT claims should be decided as a BLP Incident or as a Category for Discussion. I don't know if there is an answer to that jurisdictional question but it may matter since the the two conversations had starkly different consensuses. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- A bot changed the heading and text of this closure request to point to Archive231. That is the wrong URL. In fact the discussion is currently the first item at WP:BLPN. This confusion is my fault. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Fixed the links. It looks like someone de-archived it... although it's also in the archive. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Requesting specifically admin closure on this contentious discussion, given the range of BLP articles involved (E.g.; Václav Klaus, Bill O'Reilly William Kininmonth, Pat Sajak). The last post was 9 days ago. (Initiated 3301 days ago on 30 October 2015) μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think I'd be happy to close this having taken several goes at reading through - but actually I'd prefer another admin or two to be involved & help discuss the close. As far as I can see there is consensus that there is a problem but no actual viable solution agreed on (even the status quo). My close would be simply to remove the category to reset us back to zero and to draft/open a neutrally worded RFC at a sensible location to resolve this once and for all. Whatever it is closed as this will be contentious, and a major task, so I'd prefer assisstance. --Errant (chat!) 15:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 02:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Owen 'Alik Shahadah (Initiated 3328 days ago on 3 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Done|Unneeded}}from what I can tell; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen 'Alik Shahadah resulted in a delete of the page in question. --slakr\ talk / 03:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This has gone well over the 7 days. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Month-old TfD that is a reboot of one I previously closed; need someone uninvolved to take a look. Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Seeking a close of this RFC. With the canvassing that has taken place it's impossible to determine the consensus. There's no need in further wasting the communities time or the members who have signed up to the Request for feedback service.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3288 days ago on 12 November 2015) AlbinoFerret 03:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- It was opened on November 12 but it should have been closed on November the 14th when it became clear that editors where being sent email correspondence to advertise the RFC [1][2]. In addition to this type of inappropriate canvassing they also advertised to the Wikiproject France in the aftermath of the Paris attacks seeking to manipulate any emotional sympathies for the France that it members may have [3]. Both types of Canvassing that were employed have poisoned the well. The consensus making process has been compromised and it should be closed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Uninvolved administrator needed. (Initiated 3307 days ago on 24 October 2015) --George Ho (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Almost no definite opinions have been offered, and George Ho relisted this on December 2, so closing this is very premature. --GRuban (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Request withdrawn - The discussion is archived by the bot. George Ho (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS? (Initiated 3301 days ago on 30 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, this RfC was withdrawn in favor of another RfC which is still ongoing. Sunrise (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC: format of boxing weight classes (Initiated 3294 days ago on 6 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New York Public Library#RFC: Should the further reading section of this article be trimmed? (Initiated 3315 days ago on 16 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Done --Izno (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frogman#RfC: Should this page be substantial reduced, stubbed, or deleted due to lack of inline references and other problems? (Initiated 3314 days ago on 17 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus here? Be warned: the discussion is somewhat long and covers various issues. (Initiated 3292 days ago on 8 November 2015) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
This RfC has run for a month and failed to demonstrate consensus for a change to the stable wording in the article. Could someone please close it? Thank you. — Scott • talk 17:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Prefer a close from outside the Video games WikiProject regulars. czar 15:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Following two compromised administrator accounts, I initiated an RfC on some changes to En.WP's password rules. The discussion has all but ended, would a kind admin look over and close it please, so I can get back to the WMF on what we want implemented on En.WP only. WormTT(talk) 08:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've done most of this, but there are a few sections I was too involved with and therefore can't close. This is almost done and would require just a few minutes for an uninvolved admin to complete it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} AFAICT, this has now been fully closed by Beeblebrox and others... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please close this merge discussion? Its been open 7 days and no responses for 4 days. (Initiated 3263 days ago on 7 December 2015) Consensus should be easy to see, but outside closing is preferred to eliminate future issues. Please see [4] for an earlier discussion on the topic that prompted the merge discussion. AlbinoFerret 07:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Challenging ISIL community sanction (Initiated 3282 days ago on 18 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done by In actu. Sam Walton (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request topic ban for CheckersBoard (Initiated 3277 days ago on 23 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done by In actu. Sam Walton (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I need an accurate closing rationale. --George Ho (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion had turned stale. A clear consensus exists. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Been discussed for almost two weeks now and I think there's a clear consensus to add the criteria as a new example of a G6 to CSD (no need to renumber the criteria or anything too controversial). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Already done NE Ent 13:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Needs assessment by uninvolved admin. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Jenks24. Sam Walton (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
There has been a discussion as to whether 'Busted' should treated as a singular or plural noun throughout the article's introduction. Thank you. ~Peter Dzubay (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Caliphate#Sources (Initiated 3305 days ago on 26 October 2015)? See the subsection Template talk:Caliphate#RfC, where the opening poster wrote:
Should the Template just list a select number of caliphates (of which there are 7 as can be seen on the template) or should it include every caliphate as can be seen in the article Caliphate (of which there are ~10 as can be seen in history).
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Need an uninvolved party to access the consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Request formal, uninvolved, administrator close because the article is a biography of a living person, and is subject to discretionary sanctions Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change, and although the consensus seems sufficiently clear that a formal close might not be necessary, two involved editors have argued for variant closures. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please disposition this discussion about a mugshot open since December 8. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Open since September 27, requesting formal closure czar 14:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3292 days ago on 8 November 2015)
(edit conflict) Discussion has been open since 8 November 2015. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#RfC about WP:NOTHERE (Initiated 3298 days ago on 2 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Not done following rough on the link RFC, a new RFC has been started and is not ready for close yet.NE Ent 00:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Removed Not done template. There is no open RfC at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- NE Ent is there another RFC, and does the one now on the page need closing? AlbinoFerret 17:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, I must have posted in the wrong section (here on ANRFC), sorry. Unfortunately don't remember which RFC I was looking at. NE Ent 19:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- NE Ent is there another RFC, and does the one now on the page need closing? AlbinoFerret 17:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Requesting a closure of this merge discussion. (Initiated 3278 days ago on 22 November 2015)-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor close this one. It should be easy and quick. (Initiated 3301 days ago on 30 October 2015). There is a second RFC on the same topic started the same day, but split off 4 days later that adds questions Talk:Electronic cigarette#Questions added after the start of the RfC above. It was started by a now topic banned editor.(Initiated 3297 days ago on 3 November 2015) This should be another easy quick close. AlbinoFerret 13:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Although the consensus seems to be quite clear, it would be probably better to have a formal closure. Beagel (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Los Angeles Unified School District closure. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3255 days ago on 15 December 2015)
- {{done}} by MBisanz. Sunrise (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Heavy metal music#RfC on image in infobox (Initiated 3279 days ago on 21 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion#effect on conservation RFC (Initiated 3289 days ago on 11 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Done--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jedediah Smith#Request for Comment (Initiated 3299 days ago on 1 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think this needs a formal closure. Sam Walton (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done I withdraw this closure request. Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nicholas A. Christakis#RCF: Recentism (Initiated 3281 days ago on 19 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion appears to have been productive and is slowly ongoing so I don't think it warrants an official close. Sam Walton (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done I withdraw this closure request. Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC on recent AAU campus climate survey (Initiated 3326 days ago on 5 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- The RFC was reposted Nov 17th. AlbinoFerret 23:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}}--GRuban (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Martina Anderson#Categorisation (Initiated 3291 days ago on 9 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Purple drank#RfC: Should the section labeled "Ingredients" be removed? (Initiated 3261 days ago on 9 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Consensus and early close endorsed by sole supporter. Alsee (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Caste system in India#Brookings Institution is not RS (Initiated 3289 days ago on 11 November 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Caste system in India#RFC: Reliable Sources. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} --Izno (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting#RfC: Is "Mass murder" or "Mass shooting" more appropriate in infobox? (Initiated 3275 days ago on 25 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
There are actually three virtually identical discussions that have failed consensus and should be closed:
- Talk:Watchdog.org#Independent assessments of partisanship
- Talk:Watchdog.org#Summarization of multiple highly relevant, highly reliable independent third party assessments of ideology and partisanship
- Talk:Watchdog.org#Summarization of multiple third party assessments of ideology
Thank you!-- Paid Editor, but not on the Watchdog.org topic -- User:009o9Talk 19:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- These three sections are article talk page discussions preliminary to an RfC, currently open. These discussions do not require a close and do not require a formal close. Kindly decline this request and archive. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Not done I skimmed the situation, and per Hugh's comment above these weren't RFC's. There appears to be no reason to apply closes. Alsee (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marco Rubio#RFC: Should this material be left in the article without attribution? (Initiated 3293 days ago on 7 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#RFc for major restructuring (Initiated 3274 days ago on 26 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Carly Fiorina#RFC: Red outfit or blue outfit? (Initiated 3291 days ago on 9 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Fields Medal/Archive1#Adding photo to each winner's row in the table (Initiated 3284 days ago on 16 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} proposer cited that consensus was against proposal and planed to leave images out, boxed it up. AlbinoFerret 02:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jesus#RfC: Which should go first: the historical account or the canonical Gospel account? (Initiated 3274 days ago on 26 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kim Jong-un#Rfc: Use of non-free image (Initiated 3286 days ago on 14 November 2015)? Please consider the unclosed 2012 RfC Talk:Kim Jong-un/Archive 2#RFC:Should this biography contain a non-free image of the subject? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Schizoaffective disorder#Request for comment on the painting(s) (Initiated 3303 days ago on 28 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Edward VIII#RfC about cable text and expanded info on Duke's wartime activities (Initiated 3275 days ago on 25 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Atlantis#Rfc: Atlantis as Fiction, Allegory (Initiated 3286 days ago on 14 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC on recent AAU campus climate survey (Initiated 3285 days ago on 15 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Already done by GRuban AlbinoFerret 18:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I could have sworn I marked that closed when I did it. Aha! There were two entries on this page, pointing to one RfC discussion! [5] --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Succession to the Canadian throne. (Initiated 3282 days ago on 18 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hinduism#RfC: Explain temples and pujas in lead? (Initiated 3278 days ago on 22 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Unreferenced#References or sources? See the subsection Template talk:Unreferenced#RfC: Should the current wording of this template be reverted to its prior wording? (Initiated 3292 days ago on 8 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Community portal#RfC: Add three blocks to the "help out" section (Initiated 3281 days ago on 19 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox language#RfC: What should the language infobox display when editors have not found any speaker figures? (Initiated 3271 days ago on 29 November 2015)? Thanks --mach 🙈🙉🙊 10:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks (Initiated 3295 days ago on 5 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Since this is on an admin board, shouldn’t an admin close it? AlbinoFerret 18:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- AlbinoFerret, you are correct. I have fixed my post, thank you. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015 (Initiated 3271 days ago on 29 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin please close this. Due to the topic under discussion an admin closure is preferred. A very involved editor (CFCF) has tried to close it. (Initiated 3298 days ago on 2 November 2015) The opening question was not signed so the bot has no refrence of when to removed the RFC header, but it has been open over 30 days. AlbinoFerret 22:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed by Nyttend. AlbinoFerret 15:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iranian peoples#RfC: Should modern Azeris be described as one of the "Iranian peoples"? (Initiated 3284 days ago on 16 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)/Archive 2#RfC: Apply this Guideline to Redirects (Initiated 3281 days ago on 19 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is happening on three pages at once (NORNB, Help talk:IPA for English where it actually belongs, plus another at MOS:PRONUNCIATION). This NORNB tine of the fork has turned into another couple-of-editors-textwalling-against-each-other thing, and is actually in the wrong venue. WP:NOR pertains to the information content, not how WP presentationally wraps it. I.e., the actual content that is subject to core content policies is what the pronunciation(s) is/are. WP has multiple pronunciation transcription markup systems, and like our citation styles, this is WP-original metadata, not subject to WP:CORE. One of them is based on (mostly American) dictionary-style pronunciation keys: [pro-NUN-see-ay-shun]; the other loosely based on IPA. Both are synthetic and are internal matters, and not subject to WP:NOR / WP:V. As long as the pronunciation that emerges in the reader's mind is verifiable, it does not matter what markup wrapper we convey it with. Both of our extant pronunciation guide systems could be replaced tomorrow with something entirely different and even more arbitrary (even one consisting of entirely WP-invented orthography, though that would not of course be practical). While I agree that OP has a point – it's not wise for us to use a WP-modified version of IPA that conflicts with IPA norms that a linguist would expect – that's not an NOR matter, but a matter for consensus discussion at the IPA for English talk page. The discussion there should remain open until naturally resolved or a closure request is made, while the one at NORNB should be closed as no consensus / off topic. (Initiated 3304 days ago on 27 October 2015) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Now both sides of the dispute have conceded that this won't be resolved as a WP:NOR issue, so this fork of the discussion has no reason to stay open at WP:NORNB, and can be centralized, finally, at Help talk:IPA for English, which is collectively trying to actually resolve it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Now archivec at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Is it OK for Wikipedia to choose its own pronunciation symbols?. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{done}}. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an administrator assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles (Initiated 3289 days ago on 11 November 2015) and administer news of a topic ban to the user in question if that is what consensus calls for? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive276#Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles (Initiated 3289 days ago on 11 November 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive276#Proposed topic ban. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Political correctness#Definition of political correctness (Initiated 3294 days ago on 6 November 2015)? See Talk:Political correctness#Closing this RfC. The opening poster wrote: "Is political correctness a concept of not offending — especially the marginalized — in a community or is it primarily pejorative?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} By S Marshall. Sandstein 11:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I originally initiated a discussion on the renaming of Category:Academic pressure in East Asian cultures a few weeks back. I can see that the discussion appears to support a renaming of the category. I am an IP user so I do not have the power to close this discussion or rename it. I initially opened the discussion under the IP address of 137.147.55.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), you will notice that has changed today because my IP address always changes, I am still the same person I just have a different IP address. Could someone please close the discussion and rename the category please? It has completed its 7 day discussion as it finished last Saturday, thank you. (120.144.180.158 (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC))
- Hello, for those of you who might be sceptical of whether I am the original user who opened the discussion mentioned above, 137.147.55.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I can guarantee you I am the same person my IP address often changes so that's why I look like another user. I even mentioned this to another user on their talk page when I was using that IP address - User talk:Smileguy91#Vandalism. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew I am the same user, just a different IP address. (137.147.151.25 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC))
{{close}} – Fayenatic London 15:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Should be closed as soon as possible. George Ho (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3267 days ago on 3 December 2015) AlbinoFerret 20:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Discussion not found. Sandstein 11:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eagles of Death Metal#RfC: Anti-Israel Boycott - Roger Waters (Initiated 3268 days ago on 2 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Royal Households of the United Kingdom#Possible hoax or hoaxes (Initiated 3277 days ago on 23 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 3270 days ago on 30 November 2015) RfC about deprecating the use of image galleries in infoboxes of ethnic group articles has been open for a month. Current consensus is that it has drawn enough participation to allow for a reasonably clear closure now. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack/Archive 5#RFC Victim names (Initiated 3262 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} moved from archive to close. Talk:2015_San_Bernardino_attack#RFC_Victim_names AlbinoFerret 02:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Please keep the discussion going over here so people don't have to bounce all over trying to keep track of it. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Was supposed to close on 17th, but it's still open now. Doesn't really need a formal closure but it's two days over and no one's cared. Needs to be closed ASAP. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: RfC was officially opened on Nov. 29 – with the "false" 24-hour close (and the objections to that), it is now advisable that it stay open through at least Dec. 30. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Don't close this early, as the earlier close was controversial. However it will need a forma close. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Forgive me, but shouldn't it be closed by an uninvolved editor? Although, it's a site-wide affecting RfC, any competent editor can close it, no? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 17:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- As far reaching as this RFC is, as a NAC, I wouldnt touch it alone. I think a team closure would be best since its so big and what it seeks to accomplish, just to make sure we get it right. AlbinoFerret 19:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- What's the majority going to be and what about the discretionary range? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- As far reaching as this RFC is, as a NAC, I wouldnt touch it alone. I think a team closure would be best since its so big and what it seeks to accomplish, just to make sure we get it right. AlbinoFerret 19:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Forgive me, but shouldn't it be closed by an uninvolved editor? Although, it's a site-wide affecting RfC, any competent editor can close it, no? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 17:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Don't close this early, as the earlier close was controversial. However it will need a forma close. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Repeating: we've now reached the 30 day point. Any takers? - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think this should be closed by a team including at least one Bureaucrat and one Administrator, and have posted a request at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Request for closure: 2015 administrator election reform, Phase II. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again, advise waiting until Dec. 30 to close for the reason I alluded to above... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Breakfast (Initiated 3271 days ago on 29 November 2015)? NOTE: This is a FLOW board. There has been zero project activity in 14 months. This is an RFC to request the WMF end the Flow trial on the page. Running the RFC inside Flow was a mess. I've provided a participant summary below for assistance:
- 6 Support: Alsee Cullen328 BethNaught Doug_Weller Scott Fram
- 3 Oppose: Ottawahitech Bluerasberry WhatamIdoing
- 2 Tangential discussion with no attempt to !vote: HHill Quiddity_(WMF)
An affirmative close would authorizes a request to the WMF to end this Flow trial and return (the) conversations to a talk page. All that is needed is a close. I can take care of delivering the request to the appropriate WMF page. Alsee (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Doing... I will give it a go, since I am not sure of Flow and if templates working there I wont put a {{closing}} tag on it. This should let other closers know I am working on closing it. AlbinoFerret 09:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion was relisted but I'm pretty sure there's a clear consensus to keep. Would have withdrawn my nomination earlier but assumed it would be closed as keep regardless. No need for this to be open for another week imo. Sam Walton (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by clpo13. --Izno (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a consensus. An uninvolved administrator may be needed. --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC (Initiated 3294 days ago on 6 November 2015)? The opening poster wrote:
Current language on notability of athletes includes:
- Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan.
Should this be changed to:
- Individuals who have competed at any modern Olympic Games and who have either won a medal or won at least one heat or match in their event shall generally be considered notable. Any individual winning a medal at a Paralympics may also be generally considered to be notable.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Florida State Road 997#RJL reversions (Initiated 3287 days ago on 13 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} There does not appear to be a discussion to judge. Sam Walton (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC Appropriate version for the new clause (Initiated 3299 days ago on 1 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- As an involved editor in this topic area, I'd like to request that the closer consider the preceding discussion as well, since it discusses the status of the previous RfC close. (AFAIK that close was never appealed at AN, but it probably should have been, as expressed in e.g. this comment by WhatamIdoing.) Sunrise (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Merging duplicate request. Sunrise (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Would an uninvolved admin please close this RFC. NAC closes on this page are not ideal as it is a contentious area. The closer should also look at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 19#Request for Comment: Country_of_Origin, an RFC that lead to the current one and established consensus for change. (Initiated 3299 days ago on 1 November 2015) AlbinoFerret 00:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
| Technical stuff |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Fiona Graham#Age (Initiated 3282 days ago on 18 November 2015) AlbinoFerret 19:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)}}? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Greco-Italian War#RfC v2 (Initiated 3286 days ago on 14 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC: Flag icons in professional boxing record tables (Initiated 3264 days ago on 6 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Madison Young#RfC: is a Facebook post which documents the event first hand by an official witness sufficiently reliable? (Initiated 3261 days ago on 9 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ed Sheeran#RfC: Should we add "(read as 'plus')"? after the symbol + (Initiated 3265 days ago on 5 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elagabalus#RfC: Should the subject's gender be changed, or is this presentism? (Initiated 3262 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cold War II#RfC: Infobox or no infobox? (Initiated 3265 days ago on 5 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}}--Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Consensus seems clear and discussion has halted, so an administrator is needed to review and close three topic bans, and possibly enforce the topic bans at the following incident report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allie X Topic Ban Proposal. I can help however I can. Thank you. (Initiated 3281 days ago on 19 November 2015) SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 15:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allie X Topic Ban Proposal (Initiated 3281 days ago on 19 November 2015)? See the subsections Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-Ban for WordSeventeen and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban for SanctuaryX. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is a subsection for Zpeopleheart as well at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-Ban for Zpeopleheart Please resolve this quickly because there are still ongoing issues that need to be resolved ASAP. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
In all actuality there are new comments and discussion points have been added since the last archiving for lack of discussion, so discussion may continue. So any admin or other proper person please unarchive the whole deal so we make discuss greely to make it gair for all parties. Thanks. WordSeventeen (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have unarchived the discussion. Cunard (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- The only continued "discussion" was you opposing your own ban after removing your comments from my talk page. The discussion is very much stalled, with a pretty clear consensus for all three cases; it can still be closed regardless of whether it is archived or not. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 21:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
sanx, I do note this comment that you placed here. You are though quite incorrect on the policies and protocol at wikipedia. Please do have a fantastic day©! WordSeventeen (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Wordseventeen, SanctuaryX is correct. In an issue that has been as tendentious as this one has been, it's a good idea to not suggest that someone is quite incorrect about policies and protocol unless you are going to back it up with diffs and links to specific policies. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion now at [6]. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}.
Stale – I don't think anyone is going to follow up on this one at this point: discussion died out long ago... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida#RFC: The Burg (Initiated 3293 days ago on 7 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- RFC was updated on (Initiated 3256 days ago on 14 December 2015) with a new RFC header, we might want to close both at the same time. AlbinoFerret 15:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{Done}} – both RfC's closed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Request for closure on Johann Sebastian Bach which has had thirty-days and in ready to be closed
- Could someone visit this Talk page at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and do a close on this RfC. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC:Recent rewrites at Bach dropping large portions of biography and legacy should be restored into the article (Initiated 3263 days ago on 7 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Which photo of candidates for article? (Initiated 3263 days ago on 7 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Egyptian crisis (2011–14)#RfC: "Egyptian crisis" as a title (Initiated 3271 days ago on 29 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} – There's not enough discussion there to be able to assess a "consensus" (it doesn't even get to a "No consensus" result – there's just not enough there...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Canada#Great seal? (Initiated 3260 days ago on 10 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} – Closed by LavaBaron --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC: Flag icons in professional boxing record tables (Initiated 3264 days ago on 6 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} – Closed as "no consensus" by AlbinoFerret. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Revision Deletion (Initiated 3239 days ago on 31 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} – Closed by Floquenbeam. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Spanish general election, 2015/Archive 1#RfC: Infobox: Seats vs. Votes (Initiated 3239 days ago on 31 December 2015)? It's actually a WP:SNOWBALL case, but as the article's main author keeps disagreeing, we'd better have a formal closure. Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} – WP:SNOW closed by Fountains-of-Paris. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests#It was a protest AND a riot. It should be called that. (Initiated 3259 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#RfC: Show or hide the victims list? (Initiated 3263 days ago on 7 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islam and war#Merge discussion (Initiated 3267 days ago on 3 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mariah Carey#RfC: Are "African American" categories supported by sources and policy? (Initiated 3272 days ago on 28 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This is long overdue and I think the consensus is pretty clear (trending toward support) on this one, however I would like an uninvolved editor to close it just to be on the safe side. Thanks. — kikichugirl oh hello! 18:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
(Initiated 3291 days ago on 9 November 2015) - review of a move originally proposed 21 October 2015. Experience closing contentious discussions needed, and apologies in advance for the wall of text. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Discussion has waned past the point of productivity. Calidum T|C 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Total discussion stopped December 2, so it is stable and ready for closure. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Original close was voluntarily withdrawn. Listed for a new Admin close. (non-admin closure)Alsee (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)- As the closer of the move, it was NOT withdrawn. Where are you reading that? Tiggerjay (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I misread one of the comments there. All my error. I'm sorry for the confusion I caused. I self-reverted my edits. Except for the the comments here, everything should be back to the original state. Alsee (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- As the closer of the move, it was NOT withdrawn. Where are you reading that? Tiggerjay (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done, finally, thanks to David Eppstein. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#Juraj Sklenár's view (Initiated 3305 days ago on 26 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#RfC: Sklenár's theory.Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Sales figures: combined vs traditional (Initiated 3299 days ago on 1 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Requesting a closure of this old ANI discussion. The nominator is accused of systemic targeting a user (me) and nominating his articles at AFD. There was a boomerang, in fact. The discussion is old but not closed. (Initiated 3518 days ago on 27 March 2015) Mhhossein (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done just closed with no action ensuing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Requesting closure on these old discussions as the only relevant discussion is that the article is out of date which I started and has now been lost. The company recently announced a new Showself entertainment brand and some divestitures [1] which I'd intended on working on. Rgeurts (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done really these do not need to be closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Please close the discussion and rename the category. Thanks.--Broter (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
You now have to only close the discussion and delete the old category.--Broter (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Norman Milliken#RfC: Should the article state that Milliken, Ontario is named after Norman Milliken? (Initiated 3292 days ago on 8 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Karbala#RFC for notability (Initiated 3276 days ago on 24 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jude Wanniski#RFC on description of the Laffer curve (Initiated 3283 days ago on 17 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Portal talk:Current events/2015 November 17#APEC Philippines 2015 "Concentration camps" (Initiated 3277 days ago on 23 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Contemporary worship music#Request for comment: Length and content of article lede (Initiated 3293 days ago on 7 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Already done by Fountains-of-Paris on 13/1/2016
(Initiated 3232 days ago on 7 January 2016) It would be great if we could close this discussion[7], even though it's relatively recent, so that it directs people to the AFD instead of continuing the BLP discussion. Not sure if that's appropriate or not.--Jahaza (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not done discussion is already archived, and there is no point. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Making a community GAR was a bad choice. Although, I (suppose) consensus is clear, there's no one to close it. In fact, a huge backlog at GAR persists, help out if you can. You don't need formal closure for GARs but posting here was the last move. Also, there's a RfC on the talk page of the article, if you're willing you can participate. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 15:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done delisted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- This RfC is still under template announcement and was started 10 January. Possibly wait until 10 February. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- The question is whether it is fair and reasonable to have this template at the top of Marco Rubio when no other Republican candidate has a similar template. The Iowa caucus is in Feb. 1. The spouses of all other major candidates contesting Iowa and New Hampshire have pages. And the Jeanette Rubio page is well-sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- The "top" of the article currently has the lead section without any template, and normally a request to protect a page during polls or elections is done well in advance. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
and
- Done closed, as discussion here overtaken by AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I am requesting that Administrators take a minute to consider the appropriateness of this ongoing discussion. I am aware that this is an unusual request, but the existence of these 2 discussions less than 2 weeks before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary creates an unusual situation, one that almost seems to verge on WP:POINTY applied to the actual election of an American President. Please note that there are in-depth profiles of Mrs. Rubio in Major media outlets, and that articles exist on the spouses of all other major candidates for President. And consider whether this discussion, with attendant templates, is appropriate on the eve of Iowa and New Hampshire.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- The KEEP consensus is currently somewhat stronger, with only two editors opposed to keeping it at this time 19 January. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Already done by Coffee. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
There was a neutrality dispute at The Boy (2015 film) regarding the film's reception. I joined the discussion after a request at the Film project and have re-drafted the section (the draft is available in full on the talk page). I did install it after a reasonable waiting period but one of the original editors involved in the dispute is now opposing the redraft (I have reverted to the original version for the time-being). I think the consensus is fairly clear but since I undertook the draft it will have no validity if I close the discussion. We need somebody impartial and not involved in the dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Request for closure on Phaedrus (dialogue) which has had thirty-days and in ready to be closed
Could someone visit this Talk page at Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue) and do a close on this short RfC during the holidays. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate listing AlbinoFerret 23:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Request for closure on Johann Sebastian Bach which has had thirty-days and in ready to be closed
- Could someone visit this Talk page at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and do a close on this RfC. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC:Recent rewrites at Bach dropping large portions of biography and legacy should be restored into the article (Initiated 3263 days ago on 7 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Done - No consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: A DRN volunteer has taken it upon himself to close the RfC without knowledge that there is 4-5 Support for the edit with citations added, along with two Oppose. This is usually against DRN policy for volunteers there to close RfCs which are still open. I have written a follow-up RfC and keeping both RfCs open would make it easier for new editors to follow the argument. DRN policy is generally against the volunteers there to close RfCs especially when they resemble a "no comment/no consensus" demi-close. Could you glance at it. You had reposted this Request for closure here in the waiting queue after one of the Opposing editors deleted it here prematurely. Keeping both RfCs open would make it easier for new editors joining the discussion at the Bach Talk page. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm one of the founders of DRN, one of the longest-serving volunteers there, and the current DRN Coordinator. There is no DRN policy against volunteers closing RfCs (regardless of the type of close). Since a pending RfC will result in a DRN case being closed (due to our rule against handling cases pending in more than one dispute resolution process), I see no reason that a DRN volunteer cannot close a RfC which is clearly ready to be closed so as to allow it to proceed at DRN (provided that consensus has not clearly been reached in the RFC, in which case there is no dispute to take to DRN). Such an action may result in the neutrality of the DRN volunteer coming into question and the best practice would be for that volunteer to not take the DRN case or to withdraw from it if he or she has already touched it, which is exactly what happened in this case. It must be bourne in mind that DRN volunteers, like all dispute resolution volunteers, are ordinary Wikipedia editors who also happen to work in DR. Except as noted above, they have the right to do anything any other Wikipedia editor has the right to do. That includes closing RfCs. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- New RfC has been started and forum shopping on DRN should be discouraged. If there is an open RfC then a new DRN should not be initiated, according to DRN policy. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Already done AlbinoFerret 00:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)#RfC: Two contradictory sections in current Phaedrus (dialogue) article are self-contradictory and should be repaired (Initiated 3280 days ago on 20 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Request for closure: Wikipedia talk:List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters
Would an experienced editor assess the discussion on the RfC at Talk:List_of_Power_Rangers_Dino_Charge_characters#RfC:_Appropriate_detail_of_plot_summary_information and close as appropriate.
This follows a formal RfC initiated 29 Nov 2015, {{rfc|soc|rfcid=4B31646}}. Thanks. N2e (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Maronites#Attention needed (Initiated 3267 days ago on 3 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#RfC: The statement that (Initiated 3262 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not done Participants came to an agreement at end of RFC, just boxed it up. AlbinoFerret 21:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion has gone stale. Requesting assessment of consensus and closer of discussion. Thanks Springee (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- This is a 22 December RfC which is still under RfC template announcement with divided opinion. Should it wait until 22 January. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I had assumed 3 weeks was sufficient but if 1 month is standard then that is fine. Springee (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced administrator please assess the consensus? Formal, administrator close is respectfully requested because the topic area is under active arbitration committee oversight WP:ARBCC and the discussion is contentious. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3248 days ago on 22 December 2015) AlbinoFerret 19:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Perennial attempt to apply WP:CORE to projectpages. It's off-topic and out-of-scope at that noticeboard. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3231 days ago on 8 January 2016) AlbinoFerret 19:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not done The view expressed above is just one of several different ones in the debate. Since there is plenty of discussion, allow time for it to complete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:IPA for English#RfC: Should we continue recommending the sign ⟨ɵ⟩? (Initiated 3254 days ago on 16 December 2015)? Thanks --mach 🙈🙉🙊 15:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Already done by Fountains-of-Paris. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks#Listing all victims (Initiated 3257 days ago on 13 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done Closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:The Honourable#Honorific prefixes for the US Presidents (Initiated 3247 days ago on 23 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done Closed. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Eaglestorm and How I Met Your Mother articles (Initiated 3228 days ago on 11 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White privilege#RFC: Neutrality of the first paragraph (Initiated 3255 days ago on 15 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done Closed. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marsy's Law (Illinois)#RFC: External link to Marsy's Law For All website (Initiated 3256 days ago on 14 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done Closed. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cold War II#RfC: Current title (again) (Initiated 3247 days ago on 23 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:AURORA#RfC: Page title capitalised or not (Initiated 3253 days ago on 17 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dodge Tomahawk#RFC: Word "extraordinary" in lede sentence (Initiated 3252 days ago on 18 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Borderline personality disorder#New Image: painting by Edvard Munch (Initiated 3254 days ago on 16 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done Closed by User:Fountains-of-Paris. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Séralini affair#Proposal: Include the reason why S paper was retracted (Initiated 3254 days ago on 16 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done Closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alan Berg#RfC: Should Berg’s Jewish religion be mentioned in the lede as a motive for his murder? (Initiated 3248 days ago on 22 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#RfC: Sub-categories of Category:People by former country (Initiated 3255 days ago on 15 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
An accurate closing rationale is needed. George Ho (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- This appears to be 28 Dec Rfc with still ten days to go. Possibly check on 28 Jan. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#RFC: when are community radio stations notable? (Initiated 3262 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Green children of Woolpit#RFC: Uncited, original-research conflation, in the article introduction and headings, of three types of explanations into two (Initiated 3264 days ago on 6 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done Closed. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon#RfC: Merge and disambiguate (Initiated 3271 days ago on 29 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done Closed. Consensus already implemented on Dec. 30, 2015, by User:DrKay. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
clearly defined question in contentious topic area, ?consensus - need closure by uninvolved admin.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just a note that the RfC is only five days old and no one has agreed to end it early. That being said, the GMO ArbCom case should be wrapping up soon, so there's no harm in letting the RfC run it's normal time to allow the remedies can take effect in the meantime. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just a note that there are walls of text growing since Dec 4, no new editors have chimed in, and an unreasonable repetition of the same arguments, furthering WP:FUD stifles process. No one has disagreed tothe RFC. That being said, the GMO ArbCom case has been going on and on though King wants it to be wrapped up soon as possible, as he has stated repeatedly on the arbcom page, there's no harm in closing the RfC to stop the hemorraging of glyphosate so that small remedies can take effect in the meantime. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC) This RFC is only the first in 3 whole sale deletions by the same editor group, anticipating more RFC's to come.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Glyphosate#RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study. (Initiated 3265 days ago on 5 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Done Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect (Initiated 3270 days ago on 30 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Two individual subsections have been closed, but there are several more. Sunrise (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Sunrise: Two more of the six-part complex RfC are now closed. Is one of the editors there to compile a master RfC to close out the six sub-RfCs once the six sub-RfCs are closed? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Fountains-of-Paris: Are there any issues that will remain outstanding afterwards, like unaddressed disputes or conflicts between the sub-closures? One of the open sections is for general comments on the whole RfC, which implies there might be some benefit to an overall close, but on the other hand, there's probably no need if all the outcomes are clear and nobody objects. You and Beeblebrox are probably in a better position to decide that than I am. Sunrise (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Sunrise: The last two parts of the 6-part RfC were closed this morning. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Already done. Looks like this was all wrapped up a week ago. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Séralini affair#Citation to republication in Lede (Initiated 3254 days ago on 16 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ayurveda#Proposals (Initiated 3255 days ago on 15 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
For the Star Wars: The Force Awakens film article. Question as to whether "Episode VII " should be added to the title. 30 Days has passed. Extensive debate on this one. Probably best an admin take a look. Cheers - theWOLFchild 17:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The discussion was explicitly about adding it as an alternate title in parentheses. The title of the article was not up for discussion and has no bearing on this close. Do not confuse the issue with this request. Also, I removed from the request material that could be considered prejudicial; these requests must be neutrally worded. oknazevad (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done. (The next sound you hear will be the crash of the collective fandom of Star Wars falling down about my head!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II#RFC (Initiated 3280 days ago on 20 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
This has only been open one week, however, we have an interest in resolving quickly as it's a current events situation. All of the principal parties have indicated an agreement that they would like to see rapid resolution of the RfC faster than 30 days, including me, the proposer. (User:Leitmotiv) LavaBaron (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: Why not leave the RfC open, but change the article now as a temporary measure to be re-evaluated after the 30-day period ends? If it helps, my evaluation at this point is that "armed group" is the most likely to eventually reach consensus. Sunrise (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Sunrise:. I'm pinging @Leitmotiv: with that advice and will defer a decision to him. LavaBaron (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Holding it open is fine with me, though if the closer opts for any version of the nondescriptive word "group" the closer will hopefully provide reasoning that goes beyond naked vote-counting per my rebuttal comment in the thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Sunrise:. I'm pinging @Leitmotiv: with that advice and will defer a decision to him. LavaBaron (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3236 days ago on 3 January 2016) AlbinoFerret
- Done. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Watchdog.org#Request for comment: summarization of multiple third party assessments of degree of ideological orientation (Initiated 3262 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:PolitiFact.com#RfC: Is the Ted Cruz info relevant? (Initiated 3260 days ago on 10 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Philippine presidential election, 2016#Request for comment (Initiated 3261 days ago on 9 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- This was a properly formatted RfC. Shhhhwwww!! (talk · contribs) listed it because "There is a dispute about which opinion polls should be included in the article." An RfC close would determine whether there is consensus to restore some or all of the disputed opinion polls. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing to "assess", Cunard. You are wasting everyone's time again. There was no real question asked, and what little discussion there was seemed to agree that polls should remain at the separate article that's actually devoted to polling. This is YA example of why your spamming ANRFC with worthless entries is rendering the whole concept useless. It's no wonder that Admins are now just tuning it out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done. I have closed the discussion. An RfC close also can guide participants on making a better-formulated RfC that hopefully will bring about more discussion and a better consensus. I have done so here. Cunard (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well then, rather than spamming ANRFC with listing like this one, why don't you just go ahead and close ones like these yourself?! As you've been told multiple times, "RfC's" like this simply don't belong being listed here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Plavsic "stepping over a dead body"? (Initiated 3252 days ago on 18 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#RfC (Initiated 3248 days ago on 22 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014)#RfC: Infobox (Initiated 3258 days ago on 12 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not done There are not enough replies from which a consensus could be drawn. Sam Walton (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:LGBT in Islam#Proposed text amendment (Initiated 3246 days ago on 24 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not done SNOW RFC and change has already been done, boxed it up tp archive it. AlbinoFerret 05:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
This should be a simple close (Support: 61 !votes (75.4%), Oppose: 15 !votes (24.6%) for the proposal "Proposal: In all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the religion parameter ("Religion = ") of the infobox." with a a list of examples of religions and nonreligions.
That being said, this has been a contentious issue for many years, so a crystal clear closing summary by an uninvolved administrator will avoid many problems in the future. I would note that from past experience, anything that is vague or open to interpretation in the closing summary will become the locus of disputes and edit wars -- some editors really, really want the infobox of certain politicians to contain some variation on "Religion = Atheism", presumably to influence elections. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done No further action needed. RfC was closed with closing comment by User:Müdigkeit. (And, I might add, he/she did a great job of summarizing the consensus) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Presumably to influence elections," you're saying, Guy Macon? What an absurd and generalizing allegation, placed here to frame the RfC's closing. Opponents of your RfC seemed to have very different motivations. I personally don't even have an idea how the outcome of your RfC would be related to one or the other election.
Either way your RfC succeeded in rallying raw votes, congratulations for that. --PanchoS (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to have completely misinterpreted what I wrote. I implied nothing about those who opposed the RfC, who I assume all gave the topic a lot of thought and disagreed with the proposition because they concluded that it wasn't good for the encyclopedia. I referred to a completely different group of editors; those who refused to accept the consensus of the previous RfC that covered religion in the infobox of BLPs and who edit warred against consensus. I don't think any of those editors bothered to comment on the latest RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor close the RFC linked above? Thanks! L.tak (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done. This was a duplicate listing. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg (Initiated 3274 days ago on 26 November 2015)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting#Photo of Harper-Mercer in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done by Explicit. Cunard (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Very long overdue TfD, previously NAC'd and DRV'd. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Should Lindsay Lohan be included as a possible candidate for President of the United States in 2020?
Request for WP:SNOW close. The RfC has not been open for a full 30 days, however, after several weeks, 6 editors support deletion of Lindsay Lohan as a presidential candidate, 2 are opposed. Of the two who are opposed, one has since said "You all clearly have consensus, so if someone wants to delete Lohan I won't argue about it.". LavaBaron (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RFC regarding AAU subsection. (Initiated 3227 days ago on 12 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done. There really is nothing to decide here, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer request for Bazaan (Initiated 3230 days ago on 9 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've posted this back on AN from the archives, as there isn't quite a consensus right now. Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done Unblocked with topic ban. Sam Walton (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Plovdiv#Including historical names of the city (Initiated 3262 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
There have been about a dozen comments in the last 30 days, but a consensus is not clear. It has not been contentious, but since it affects a WP guideline, an uninvolved editor is requested to assess consensus and close it. (Initiated 3250 days ago on 20 December 2015) Thanks, —Ojorojo (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Done - No consensus, but some options were eliminated. Recommend a second-round RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Please disposition Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge#Proposed merge with Ammon Bundy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Reply - Also, may we archive Talk:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#RfC:_Rump_Militia? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: From the perspective of closure, there's no need for the discussion to be kept on the current talk page. The closer should be able to find it, and may or may not choose to dearchive it at that time. After archiving, it may also be helpful to add a link to the ANRFC entry pointing to the new location. Sunrise (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Charli XCX#RFC: MOS:SURNAME and articles related to Charli XCX (Initiated 3238 days ago on 1 January 2016)? Thanks, sst✈ (speak now) 06:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oldest people#Proposed merge with List of oldest living people (Initiated 3266 days ago on 4 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Martin McGuinness#"deputy" vs "Deputy" (Initiated 3269 days ago on 1 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done. My only-ever edit to the Troubles on Wikipedia is now behind me...—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Socialism#RfC: What should be the topic of this article? 2 (Initiated 3239 days ago on 31 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Done Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Meshblock#Should the title be Meshblock or Mesh Block? (Initiated 3233 days ago on 6 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done That was easy, the move has already been done. --GRuban (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#New usergroup with autopromotion to implement arbitration "30-500" bans as a page protection (Initiated 3229 days ago on 10 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Done - Rough consensus is Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Need an uninvolved admin to close this very long, rambling, and frequently heated requested move. To me it looks like the consensus is to move it to Rare (company), but I'm an involved party, so I can't rule on it. Note that a previous page move of the same page was also made, which seems to have been closed in a way that went arguably against consensus. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 10#Category:Oil and gas companies of Australia
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Transhumanist politics#Request for Comment: Is Istvan's bus tour relevant? (Initiated 3236 days ago on 3 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Done - No consensus
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119#The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon? (Initiated 3308 days ago on 23 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Not done. Local editors on the page have agreed to retain this practice, a close is not needed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gilles-Éric Séralini#RFC regarding Awards/Honor section (Initiated 3255 days ago on 15 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Martin McGuinness#Monarch/ appointed by (Initiated 3255 days ago on 15 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Done Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC: Should an "a-prefixing" guideline be added to MOS:CT? (Initiated 3250 days ago on 20 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Done - No consensus, but advice to drop certain alternatives and run an RFC with fewer choices. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This AfD has been open for 18 days with the last !vote being registered more than 3 days ago, following a third relisting. After a thorough conversation with many excellent policy points on all sides, there is a slim majority of 24 !votes for Delete (53% of all opinions registered). LavaBaron (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- If I was closing that (which, mercifully, I'm not...), I'd close it as "No consensus" – there are valid points on both sides, and there is not a clear consensus in either direction... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Coffee (thanks!) I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Can someone close the RFC here? L.tak (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge#Use of Flag Icons in Infobox (Initiated 3236 days ago on 3 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Done Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Charli XCX#RFC: MOS:SURNAME and articles related to Charli XCX (Initiated 3238 days ago on 1 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Already done. Closed by KrakatoaKatie. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Panagiotis Kone#RfC: Does the source support labeling Kone as ethnic Greek? (Initiated 3232 days ago on 7 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done – though it's more accurate to label this "moot". Anyway, closed either way. (Though another one that didn't belong listed here, and likely didn't need a "formal" close...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Martin McGuinness#Monarch/ appointed by (Initiated 0 days' time on 12 November 2024)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge#Proposed merge with Ammon Bundy (Initiated 3229 days ago on 10 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Already done. Closed by AlbinoFerret. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#RFC - Antisemitic incidents (Initiated 3232 days ago on 7 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Done Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legacypac's persistent bullying (Initiated 3223 days ago on 16 January 2016)? See for example the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal for Resolution. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Already done. Closed by Ched. Note: Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive913#Legacypac's persistent bullying. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Habib Ali al-Jifri#RfC: Is the critical content neutral and well sourced? (Initiated 3237 days ago on 2 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson#RFC (Initiated 3233 days ago on 6 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done as there is no clarity re: what the scope of the RfC, or for that matter, the need for assessment given the structure of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done to give advice on how to proceed. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Slano Blato Landslide#RFC: Should "Salt Mud Slide" be moved to "Slano Blato landslide"? (Initiated 3230 days ago on 9 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done as outcome is already enacted, and the notes at the bottom of the RfC are sufficient for this purpose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done to record the outcome and explain what editors should do if they disagree with the outcome. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Media franchise#Alright, Bring It! (Initiated 3243 days ago on 27 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done. This was a merge discussion which should not have been started as an RfC in the first place; given the comments/response to it anyway, I see no need to recognise it as a RfC just because a bot tag previously said that it was. Request refused. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merge discussions should be closed whether or not they are RfCs. Done. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merge discussions should be closed whether or not they are RfCs.
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ethnocracy#RfC: material that does not explicitly refer to ethnocracy (Initiated 3238 days ago on 1 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done. This RfC was started by a banned user so does not require a formal assessment. Even if we look at the question being open to comment, each response to it is differently nuanced and I see no need for anyone to waste time trying to further summarise them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done. A participant wrote, "Note the above user was blocked as a long term sock puppet. However the question stands for comment", so the participant did not want the RfC to be invalidated. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015#RfC: Lead - full term, etc (Initiated 3233 days ago on 6 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done again as there is no need. Nobody understood the question to be answered, and by the time the editor who opened the RfC attempted to clarify, only one further comment was received to which the proposer suggested the clarified question was still not fully understood. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done to give advice on how to proceed. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:ShadowsCommons#Deliberate shadowing (Initiated 3236 days ago on 3 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done given that assessment is unnecessary from the limited tangential comments which responded to the section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done to give advice on how to proceed. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Could we have an experienced editor or admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members" (Initiated 3231 days ago on 8 January 2016)? Considering the backlog here, I thought it prudent to apply a day early for this biggie. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done by S Marshall. Sunrise (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this RfC? The debate has come to a natural end, the conclusion being that zero changes should now be made—as the alternatives cannot be agreed upon. (Initiated 3210 days ago on 29 January 2016)? Thank-you, --Neve–selbert 12:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done by Mental Asylum at 13:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC) already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This has been open for over a week. There's still some discussion, but at this point I think its productivity is coming to an end. The main complication is that an admin already attempted to resolve the dispute, but didn't actually close the discussion or provide an answer to the initial question. To help avoid any doubt in resolving this issue, I'd like to request that the closer explicitly note what the consensus is about the RfC being appealed. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3209 days ago on 30 January 2016)
- Done here, but see closing summary if this is in issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion was relisted on February 1st, and almost two weeks have since past. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Open for 24 days. No new comments since February 1. There is a consensus to close this RM. epicgenius (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done Withdrawing own nomination. epicgenius (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Although its been up a week [8], the date in the RFC has been altered [9] to give the impression it has only just been started. N0n3up clearly doesn't accept a lack of consensus for his proposal and is opposing closure, I think this needs a neutral admin to review the discussion and sentence the closure (or not) as they deem appropriate. As a neutral 3rd party looking at some of the comments being made eg Do that, and it will be reverted. This act will be considered an aggression and the assertion that only he can close the RFC I can see trouble ahead. Hopefully a steely eyed admin can intervene and pour oil on troubled waters. Pinging @Snowded: to let him know I've done this. WCMemail 17:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Need a neutral review but even the RfC is tedious, the obsession with inserting superpower against consensus has been running for a coupe of months now. I didn't spot the change of date that really is gaming ----Snowded TALK 00:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Wee Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, with all due respect, I would just like to say that this wouldn't had happened if Snowded and Juanriley (two of the stalkers who've constantly slithered towards my edits) wouldn't had been involved regardless of the outcome of the Rfc and discussions. Now personally, I am very accepting with others disagreeing and even reverting my edits. What I am not okay with is Snowded's constant stalking and manipulation of my edits. If you check the British Empire Talk page, you'll see that others didn't respond as much as Snowded did because he was constantly fighting back by constantly posting against my edits that almost looks like a backlash (if you want more examples of his and Juanriley's stalking, leave me a message in my talk page, I promise to take the time to list them all). Yes, I agree that the Rfc ws going for a couple of days, but recently I hadn't had the time to post up-to-date, and besides, it should be deleted in 20 days or so by a bot and not to mention that Wikipedia has no deadlines. (N0n3up (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC))
- I would ordinarily have left the RFC to run for 30 days or more before resorting to here. The comments made by N0n3up with the bad faith accusations of "stalking" and manipulation not to mention the comments referenced above convinced me this was becoming toxic and required an admin to look at. I was very tempted to take this to WP:ANI. WCMemail 01:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Wee Apparently you didn't look at the history involved in my previous post. I would normally concentrate on the topic in hand, but I felt that it was necessary to bring this into light because this dilemma had been one problem in the discussion page in BE talk page. I agree I shouldn't have posted this here and should've probably saved it for ANI. But if you think I posted in bad faith, you're wrong. I also covered the loose ends due to my lack of time and etc.. Again, recheck what I've said, I'm not accusing anyone, I'm simply stating what happened. I apologize for the inconvenience this provoked. (N0n3up (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC))
- User:Wiki-Ed and User:Snowded have done an admirable job in trying to keep a well written article intact. On this particular issue I agree with them--though I think we have had disagreements in the past. I hesitated to post here (and there) lately because User:N0n3up will say I am stalking him. In fact, I think this is the first article we came to loggerheads on and lately again I have attempted to keep my presence minimal where and when he starts off on a tirade on other articles we both apparently watch. Juan Riley (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Juan Riley First of all, save it for ANI, this is regarding the Rfc. Second, your edits in British Empire, United Kingdom and the American Civil War, France, Suez Crisis, List of pioneers in computer science and Treaty of Versailles say otherwise, All of which you began to edit since I started to edit in them, all beginning in British Empire. It's only a matter of finding your name in the edit history of each article. Again, this is regarding the Rfc, in which I made a mistake mentioning this. (N0n3up (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC))
- Nuff said. Juan Riley (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Anyhow, Kudpung thought it best to leave it here, just to get back in track of topic, think we went off rail a second there. (N0n3up (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC))
I recommend that the Rfc be allowed to run its (30-day) course. Then place a 1-year moratorium, upon closure of the Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with GoodDay here this is the most diplomatic way to handle this situation. Reb1981 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Though it hasn't been 30 days, it's about 21 days not including the pre-Rfc related discussion, with absolutely no chance of a consensus for superpower being added to the article. If we include the pre-Rfc discussion? This whole super power dispute has been going on since October 2015. Recommend closing that Rfc now & placing a 1-year moratorium on allowing the topic being raised again. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Cunard, I don't know what paperwork needs to be filed, but I will close this and leave a note to say that this matter needs to be left alone for a year. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Already done by Drmies AlbinoFerret 02:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Open for 26 days (minimum = 7 days). Discussion stalled: last comment 4 days ago, previous comment 3 days before that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy#Request for comments (Initiated 3233 days ago on 6 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC) {{Done}} Robert McClenon (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Josip Broz Tito#RfC January 2016 (Initiated 3232 days ago on 7 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} but no consensus. Recommend a new, more clearly worded RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vehbi Koç#RfC on the Kasapyan estate (Initiated 3229 days ago on 10 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (this seems to have been listed twice) --GRuban (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Request for comment (Initiated 3219 days ago on 20 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marco Rubio#RFC: Does the sourcing given support the statement "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change"? (Initiated 3220 days ago on 19 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Josip Broz Tito#RFC: RfC January 2016 (Initiated 46 days ago on 11 December 2015|done=yes)? All users particating to the RfC agree to include in the lead a mention to "the repression of political opponents" during Tito's regime but for some unclear reasons one user opposes the change. Thanks, --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} - No consensus, with many complaints about the wording of the RFC. Recommend a new, neutrally worded, clear RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Backlogs
Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ford Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section (Initiated 3161 days ago on 18 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lord Uxbridge's leg#RfC: Caption for lead image (Initiated 3171 days ago on 8 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RfC: Coat of Arms of Canada (Initiated 3162 days ago on 17 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions#RfC (Initiated 3162 days ago on 17 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Caravan (1936 song)#RfC: Inclusion of Harry James's and Santo & Johnny's covers of Caravan (Initiated 3172 days ago on 7 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#RFC: Background vs. Backing vocals? (Initiated 3163 days ago on 16 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident#RfC: Should the photo + text in the reaction section be removed? (Initiated 3169 days ago on 10 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover? (Initiated 3185 days ago on 23 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Resting bitch face#RfC: is the title suitable? (Initiated 3172 days ago on 7 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Unofficial discussion, but a non article editor has requested a formal close by an uninvolved editor. Please only close the !voting portion so we can continue the discussion until it is automatically archived. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Could an editor close the discussion at Talk:1948_Palestinian_exodus_from_Lydda_and_Ramle#RfC? Thanks, nableezy - 16:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#RfC: is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES outdated? (Initiated 3150 days ago on 29 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#RfC: Should current and recent candidates for US President be called "politicians"? (Initiated 3130 days ago on 18 April 2016)? While the RfC has generated responses from approximately 35 editors, constructive responses to this RfC have dwindled to only a few in the past week as other controversies concerning the US Presidential election and candidates overtake this question. However, I think the question is still relevant and ask for assessment and closure, while the answer to the question is still useful. Thanks. General Ization Talk 00:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This RfC at Template talk:British colonial campaignsabout Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland pre-1922 (Initiated 3157 days ago on 22 March 2016) centres around whether conflicts there should be included in this template. This is extremely contentious and follows a protracted discussion going back even further. There has been no activity for two weeks now, so I think closure by an uninvolved administrator would be appropriate. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
There's a RfC needing a formal close, thanks. (Initiated 3136 days ago on 12 April 2016) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The 30 days expire today on this Rfc. May we have closure, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Amway#RFC: Wording of Lede Paragraph (Initiated 3163 days ago on 16 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#RfC: Twitter controversy (Initiated 3148 days ago on 31 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 2#Proposed merge with 2016 Chicago protest (Initiated 3167 days ago on 12 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#RfC: Proposed expiry notice for users with an active IPBE (Initiated 3158 days ago on 21 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an editor please consider closing this RfC? There has been no activity for over a month. Thanks. ゼーロ (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Implementing Help:Maintenance template removal (Initiated 3138 days ago on 10 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village_pump (proposals)/Archive 131#RFC: Corrections on Main Page? (Initiated 3156 days ago on 23 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: is there a deadline for a draft? (Initiated 3155 days ago on 24 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#RfC: PROD in user space (Initiated 3144 days ago on 4 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
If someone could close this requested move discussion, that would be appreciated. The consensus is obvious, but I'd like someone uninvolved to close it. I can take care of the actual moves (of which there will be many) if you'd prefer not to. (Initiated 3118 days ago on 30 April 2016) ~ RobTalk 04:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} @BU Rob13: I closed the discussion for you and moved this page + Template:NFL Drafts; I let you take care of the other years and similarly-named pages, which are indeed numerous. Also, be aware that List of NFL Drafts currently redirects to List of professional American football drafts and only an admin can move List of NFL drafts until wp:page mover rights materialize. — JFG talk 17:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- @JFG: Thanks! I'll make some requests at the uncontroversial move requests area. ~ RobTalk 17:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I also changed capitalization in {{Infobox NFL Draft}}. Be aware that you may get plenty of red links until all yearly drafts are moved, but all should work automatically in the end. — JFG talk 17:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- @JFG: Thanks! I'll make some requests at the uncontroversial move requests area. ~ RobTalk 17:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at the above page. This RfC concerns the dispute whether using panino or panini as the singular common noun in the article in the English (not Italian) language wiki best follows Wikipedia protocols on descriptive vs prescriptive linguistics. Py0alb (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Not open 30 days yet; please feel free to ping me when it has been 30 days and I'd be happy to close. ~ RobTalk 20:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a large ~50 day backlog of files which have been transferred to Commons. Would appreciate it if willing admins could spend time on it. -FASTILY 08:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
XfD
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Quillen metric (Initiated 3155 days ago on 24 March 2016) MFD that has been open and fairly solid consensus since March. As the nominator, I've walked away for a while only to discover this still isn't closed. Hasteur (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Administrative
WP:CSD
We would like to ask for formal closure of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Proposal:_prolong_period_of_postponing_deletion_of_empty_categories_from_4_days_to_14_days. The consensus seems to be unanimous, but since this is a (minor) change to speedy deletion criteria, we'd prefer a formal closure. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? (Initiated 3193 days ago on 15 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note that one of the editors in the discussion has requested admin closure, by someone who is familiar with MFD [10]. Sunrise (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Nakon. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
This RfC has expired. Could a non-involved editor please give it a formal close? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by BU Rob13. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring and Wikipedia talk:User pages#Should old user space drafts have an expiration date?
Seven days since last vote. Can be closed now. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Really should wait the full 30 days on this one given how contentious this area has been recently. ~ RobTalk 20:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- All discussion has ceased. Just because there's a time limit does not mean it's rigid. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The closer of Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring should also close Wikipedia talk:User pages#Should old user space drafts have an expiration date? at the same time. The latter RfC is entirely concerned with questions also covered in the former (in section A3 in particular), just posed differently. Oddly enough, the two RfCs drew comments from a largely different set of editors. As such, they need to be closed together to assess full consensus and prevent contradictory results that will lead to the issue persisting as different sides cite their favored outcome. As such, I have added the latter RfC to this request. I don't envy the closer's task. A2soup (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Seraphimblade, Ymblanter, and KrakatoaKatie. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Yahweh#RfC: Is the focus of this article appropriate? (Initiated 3129 days ago on 19 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Already archived, minimal participation, and no clear question. Not worth unarchiving for a closure that sheds no light on anything. ~ RobTalk 22:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC about the length of sections on Thompson, Carrier and others (Initiated 3147 days ago on 1 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#RfC: Shall we add a number column to our current Tennis Guideline #4:Career chart? (Initiated 3142 days ago on 6 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paisley#RfC: Should this title point to the Scottish town or the fabric pattern? (Initiated 3150 days ago on 29 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Is a change in citation markup method a change in citation style?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Is a change in citation markup method a change in citation style? (Initiated 3153 days ago on 26 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance#RfC: Can SIGNIFICANCE be inherited? (Initiated 3147 days ago on 1 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin determine if this discussion is still related to the topic and, if not, close it? LavaBaron (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marlon Brando#Recent changes to Personal life section (Initiated 3159 days ago on 20 March 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Marlon Brando#RfC: Should the Brando quote remain the same, and should the worldofwonder.net material be used?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Psychology sidebar#Behavioral Genetics (Initiated 3176 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 Stanley Cup playoffs#RfC: Please change the round names (Initiated 3136 days ago on 12 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of films considered the best#Rename (Initiated 3131 days ago on 17 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:To Pimp a Butterfly#RfC: Keep "conscious hip hop"? (Initiated 3126 days ago on 22 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#Delegate count source RfC (Initiated 3138 days ago on 10 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genocides in history#RfC: Definition of genocide to select content for this page (Initiated 3135 days ago on 13 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Education of the British Royal Family#Should the table in this article be deleted? (Initiated 3134 days ago on 14 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Education of the British Royal Family#Should sourced criticism of the ruling family be permitted on WP? (Initiated 3133 days ago on 15 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#RfC: Do selective deletions of material make this article non-neutral? (Initiated 3126 days ago on 22 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Timothy Leary#RfC: Was "philosopher" an actual occupation (rather than just an avocation) of Timothy Leary and should he be described as such in the lead sentence and infobox? (Initiated 3129 days ago on 19 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Sunni Islam#RfC: Presentation of Zahiri and other madhhabs (Initiated 3128 days ago on 20 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML (Follow Up)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML (Follow Up) (Initiated 3127 days ago on 21 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus ? (Initiated 3145 days ago on 3 April 2016)? Thanks, Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Listed further up, removing duplicate listing. ~ RobTalk 12:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Backlogs
This is ripe for closure. It will require adding the same new line to each of two pages, Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} @BD2412: I'll let you make the proposed changes to those pages. ~ RobTalk 12:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Backlogs
I'm requesting an admin to assess the consensus at this thread. Besides multiple other uncivilities by the nominator (such as when he told me that I was "tripping on acid" or "belonged in a place where I should be taken care of on hourly basis") he did not refrain from making further attacks by saying "your "just for fun reverts" appear childish to me", "...then just use a thesaurus or ask an adult" and "the English you used was childish and quite wrong". After reporting it, he surprisingly repeated his attack on the ANI page! I have explained in detail how many times he had been warned by admins to resolve his major civility issues. Thank you. (Initiated 0 days' time on 12 November 2024) Mhhossein (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} - request is stale. If user presents an issue in the future, please notify the relevant noticeboard. Thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I would like to request an admin close abort this AfD on two grounds: (a) it is not a request for deletion, but a request for renaming, (b) this specific article just passed AfD 84 days ago; this newest AfD was opened by a freshly-minted account that has already accumulated a block log in its 30 days activity. It is unreasonable to subject our articles to repeated and constant AfDing by WP:DUCKs every few months in the hope that eventually no one will be watching and an AfD will "stick". This creates a severe drain on the time and resources of editors and disrupts the project substantially. LavaBaron (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please note that the nom, whose account was open for a month, has now been blocked for a month by Coffee (their second block in their short Wikihistory). Also, take a gander at their userspace. All these facts combined indicates this is a SPA whose single-purpose is disruption. Again request a procedural close on this disruptive AfD. LavaBaron (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Administrator note: I closed the previous AFD and blocked the current nominator indefinitely for different reasons. But now that so many other people have participated in the discussion, I'm
Not sure that a procedural close is the right course of action. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- With deference and appreciation for Coffee's explanation vis a vis the number of participants, I don't believe the fact that this section of the noticeboard seems to have been essentially abandoned should become a wedge through which all manner of spurious things can be crammed through. I requested an abortion of this AfD by the book, in a timely manner, and in a single and compact location instead of spamming every on-line Admin about it. To keep this AfD open now would essentially be punishing me for not erupting into hysterics. Ojectively, the AfD would have been aborted on 16MAY had it been evaluated for closure at that time. Past inaction cannot be used to countenance present inaction. To ration my time so that I can devote appropriate energy to this non-GF AfD, I have already had to abandon two GA reviews after other editors have already offered feedback. Disruptive AfDs by socks create a real drain on resources of contributing editors and should be shut-down. The logical conclusion of us not doing that is no more articles left on WP as they've all been AfD blitzed by socks. LavaBaron (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @LavaBaron: If there is a behavioural problem with the AfD nominator, ask an admin or go to SPI/ANI/whatever. But is it really necessary to close the AfD ASAP?
- Ex post the sheer amount of comments on both sides proves that the community does not consider the nomination frivolous. But even ex ante I do not see what would be the rationale for a speedy close; even if the wording is aggressive, it is not unquestionably disruptive, and re-opening a "no consensus" AfD after three months is not a DRV in disguise.
- Reading the closing comment of that one, I would even think re-opening it immediately with a link and a more precise question about the sources could be appropriate. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. The AfD was made by a disruptive SPA who was indeffed almost immediately after opening it. The AfD is a re-nom of an AfD that was successfully rejected just the other month. The purpose of the re-AfD was single-fold: disruption. This is a charged topic and the AfD is likely to be charged. This was the SPAs entire purpose in opening it. The matter was settled just the other month, there is no reason to artificially create a charged and emotive atmosphere in WP which is what this frivolous reopening of a settled AfD is intended to do, and is accomplishing. The matter has already been settled. The AfD should be subject to a procedural close. LavaBaron (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- And as proof of point, I'm now being accused of trafficking in child porn. [11] Lovely. Just lovely. Can someone please shut this shit show down? LavaBaron (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- But, they make a great point LavaBaron. I shouldn't have had to click on your ridiculous "mystery" link to find out that I needed to contact a Wikimedia steward regarding that user's userpage. The fact that you didn't properly contact an administrator regarding that shit, shows that you wanted that to have some form of magical effect on the AFD. That is more disruptive than anything anyone else has done on that AFD, with the exception of the nominator, and it says a lot about your character. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Really, Coffee? Really? A "great point"? I alerted the community that the nom of this AfD was posting "non-contextualized naked toddler pics on their userspace" - what kind of "mystery" is that? And as for me not 'contacting an admin' ... the editor had already been blocked by you for several hours at the time I alerted the community. You didn't need to click on a "mystery link." You were already aware of the editor's userspace and were choosing to do nothing about it. If the pilot is asleep at the controls you're damn right I'm going to wake-up the passengers. Far from impugning my character, it says a lot about the character of someone not willing to do the right thing until there's public pressure on them to act.
- The person who made this vile and sick personal attack against me has now fully retracted it. But you're still saying this retracted personal attack is a "great" point. So if you really believe that, and aren't just firing chaff to draw attention from your inexcusably delayed action on this matter, you need to do something about it right now. And I'm not talking about some Wiki-drama shake-out-the-sillies finger-wagging "tsk-tsk!" block, I mean you need to call the police. LavaBaron (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- LavaBaron Your original link said nothing of the sort. Don't play games with me. And as to this drivel: "You were already aware of the editor's userspace" - administrators rarely view userpages before or after they block someone, just as I had not viewed their userpage. So your accusation that I was "not willing to do the right thing" is not just baseless, it's false. I'll warn you to not do that again. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- But, they make a great point LavaBaron. I shouldn't have had to click on your ridiculous "mystery" link to find out that I needed to contact a Wikimedia steward regarding that user's userpage. The fact that you didn't properly contact an administrator regarding that shit, shows that you wanted that to have some form of magical effect on the AFD. That is more disruptive than anything anyone else has done on that AFD, with the exception of the nominator, and it says a lot about your character. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- And as proof of point, I'm now being accused of trafficking in child porn. [11] Lovely. Just lovely. Can someone please shut this shit show down? LavaBaron (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. The AfD was made by a disruptive SPA who was indeffed almost immediately after opening it. The AfD is a re-nom of an AfD that was successfully rejected just the other month. The purpose of the re-AfD was single-fold: disruption. This is a charged topic and the AfD is likely to be charged. This was the SPAs entire purpose in opening it. The matter was settled just the other month, there is no reason to artificially create a charged and emotive atmosphere in WP which is what this frivolous reopening of a settled AfD is intended to do, and is accomplishing. The matter has already been settled. The AfD should be subject to a procedural close. LavaBaron (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} another admin has now closed this AfD; request is now moot LavaBaron (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Reducing List of social networking websites from indefinite full protection to indefinite 30/500 protection (Initiated 0 days' time on 12 November 2024)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Permission to come back to the Ref Desks (Initiated 0 days' time on 12 November 2024)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Requested moves
General discussion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dr. Luke#RfC - Should section header mention sexual assault allegations? (Initiated 3158 days ago on 21 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Amway#RFC: Wording of Lede Paragraph (Initiated 3163 days ago on 16 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} and closed as no consensus a week ago by (non-administrator) GRuban (ping). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:British colonial campaigns#Request for comment (Initiated 3157 days ago on 22 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} two weeks ago and closed as no consensus (default to status quo) by (non-administrator) BU_Rob13 (ping). The RfC was (in short) about whether Ireland under British rule is considered as a colony of Great Britain. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emmaus Nicopolis#Request for Comment (Initiated 3141 days ago on 7 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pantomime#RfC: Is this article about pantomine or mainly British pantomime? (Initiated 3125 days ago on 23 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (non-admin closure). The toxic environment at the RfC will likely make necessary to open a new one (with better wording, hopefully). TigraanClick here to contact me 16:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Order of approximation#RfC: Should we transform this article into a dab page? (Initiated 3144 days ago on 4 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
This Rfc's tag has expired (after 30 days) & so we need somebody to close it. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Would somebody close this Rfc, please? :) GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
It's been nearly a full month, since the Rfc tag expired. Would someone PLEASE review the results & close? GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Going on 5-full weeks, now. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syed Hamid Hussain#RfC: significance of Hussain in the Bacha Khan University attack (Initiated 3153 days ago on 26 March 2016)? Please also consider the discussion at Talk:Bacha Khan University attack#Hamid Hussain. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (non-admin closure). The RfC is actually a merge proposal, and could not be resolved. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:My Old Kentucky Home/Archive 1#RfC: Rendition lists (Initiated 3157 days ago on 22 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Fair use in... images#RfC: What is the point of this category and how can its title be improved? (Initiated 3160 days ago on 19 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (non-admin closure) - procedural close in favor of a CfD discussion. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War#Rfc regarding sentence in the lede (Initiated 3148 days ago on 31 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: Artist name as disambiguation regarding non-notable song titles (Initiated 3159 days ago on 20 March 2016)? Thanks, SSTflyer 04:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}}--GRuban (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Preferred protocol for external links (Initiated 3140 days ago on 8 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} Mz7 (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Second law of thermodynamics#RfC on the lead (Initiated 3118 days ago on 30 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} for #1 Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ted Cruz#RfC: Should the campaign section be reduced to avoid undue weight? (Initiated 3142 days ago on 6 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- No close is necessary. It's already moved to Talk:Ted_Cruz/Archive_8 and the consensus is obvious if not meaningless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tamils#RfC: Tamils as a Stateless nation (Initiated 3147 days ago on 1 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Superman#Request for comment (Initiated 3151 days ago on 28 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Al Jazeera America#RfC: Reactions to "The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers" documentary (Initiated 3151 days ago on 28 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Domestic violence#"Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence (Initiated 3162 days ago on 17 March 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Domestic violence#RfC: Redundant sentence?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)#RfC: How can non-web content be classed as web content? (Initiated 3145 days ago on 3 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kanye West#Mentioning marriage to Kim Kardashian in the lead (Initiated 3135 days ago on 13 April 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Kanye West#RfC: Lead material?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States#RFC on graph inclusion (Initiated 3128 days ago on 20 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
A close is badly needed here to resolve a dispute regarding whether an infobox should remain in the article. If you're an experienced uninvolved user, please feel free to close the discussion. Thank you. (Initiated 3137 days ago on 11 April 2016) ~ RobTalk 03:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- On the one hand, there was never a formal RFC. On the other hand, there was discussion as if there had been a formal RFC. As a result, I am closing the question as if there had been a formal RFC. Both strength of numbers and strength of arguments support restoring the infobox. Another RFC is recommended as to what to list as her nationality (Welsh, British, omit nationality). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Consensus may have been reached. This needs an accurate closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jean Lapierre#Proposed merge with 2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash (Initiated 3149 days ago on 30 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by AjaxSmack. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Please disposition Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 UCLA shooting. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - While this discussion has been closed, no verdict on the closure (keep/rename/delete/no consensus) has been specified. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not that difficult to work out the answer - see the article / talk page history. Or you could have asked the closer to clarify. Closed properly now, anyway. BencherliteTalk 00:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - While this discussion has been closed, no verdict on the closure (keep/rename/delete/no consensus) has been specified. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Please disposition Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harambe. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This discussion needs to be closed before it approaches canvassing. (Initiated 3079 days ago on 8 June 2016) 107.77.229.153 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- No it doesn't and having that list here is the height of irony. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Per WP:APPNOTE, it is okay to notify others on a central noticeboard (like WP:AN) about an ongoing discussion as long as the notification is neutrally-worded. It was done properly here. No need for closure. Mz7 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
a bot just removed the template as 30 days has passed..so requesting again..will an experienced, uninvolved admin please undertake closing the RfC at "area of a disk"...it's been open a month but discussion has pretty much died over the past couple of weeks...about 30 people contributed with 26 "voting" (16 to 10 favoring "circle") with lots of policy points/discussion on both sides...it's a very long rfc and will take a not insignificant amount of time to close properly..so you'd have to be willing to spend some time...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Moved from WP:AN — xaosflux Talk 14:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
{{done}} Tazerdadog (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Unbundle the 'delete' userright from the administrator toolset (Initiated 3087 days ago on 31 May 2016)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Tazerdadog at 05:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC). Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Has gone well over the 7 days. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} (relisted by someone else) Deryck C. 15:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Administrative
Please assess the consensus at that discussion. Some editors believe there's consensus for the change, but another has reverted claiming no consensus. Thanks. (Initiated 3108 days ago on 10 May 2016) ~ RobTalk 12:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. No closure action necessary as the substance of the discussion has already moved on. Deryck C. 15:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This RfC recently expired. Would be good to get an official close on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3183 days ago on 25 February 2016), no new input in a long time. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
{{done}} Tazerdadog (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Scottish & Welsh First Ministers infoboxes (Initiated 3186 days ago on 22 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
{{done}} Tazerdadog (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Resting bitch face#Pictures - BLP violations (Initiated 3122 days ago on 26 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
{{done}} Tazerdadog (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#RFC: Title (Initiated 3133 days ago on 15 April 2016)? Please consider Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#Rename article in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
{{done}}Tazerdadog (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Yuan dynasty#Goryeo is only vassal of Yuan (not a part of), it is adopted by Chinese scholars (Initiated 3124 days ago on 24 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard: I don't think a third-party closure is necessary. The historical nuances have been expounded in the discussion and there's little dispute. The general sentiment is that we need a better map, but until then it is better to keep the current map than none. I'd leave the discussion open so other editors can add their comments as appropriate. Deryck C. 10:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing the discussion, Deryck Chan (talk · contribs). I withdraw this closure request. Marking as {{done}} for the bot. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)