Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
2013
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Caste/Archive 4#RfC: Does the article minimize the centrality of India to the notion of caste? (initiated 4 September 2012)? Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Koro (medicine)#Request for Comments - Science / Medicine (no longer needed pending update from new sources) (initiated 7 December 2012). The last comment was made on 8 December 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prometheus (film)#RfC: Is poor scientific awareness in movie Prometheus screenplay relevant? (initiated 19 November 2012)? The 30-day RfC template has expired and there are concerns raised about whether the RfC was even properly formulated in the first place. The discussion is largely dominated by 2 editors arguing back and forth with each other; input from other contributors seems to be minimal at this point and it seems a formal closure is needed. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
There is consensus in the talk page to change the title of the article. Requesting someone to close the discussion and move the article.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, someone closed it. But an admin still needs to move the article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Done, though that RfC isn't a great example of how such a discussion should go. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Murder of Kitty Genovese#RfC: Should race of perpetrator be included. (initiated 11 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Not done The discussion is still ongoing. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest taking another look at this, since things have pretty much degenerated into name-calling. There's been a fairly good amount of response, although I'm far from sure that there is a consensus, one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 30#Actresses? See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242#A troubling situation. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Closed by Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 December 10#File:Enencephaly.jpg? This substantial conversation was closed on a technicality without being evaluated. I have undone the closure and explained why I think it is still important to evaluate the consensus. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not done if you want an explanation, than ask the deleting admin (user:Chick Bowen) or take it up at WP:DRV. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
See motion to close and summary with overwhelming consensus support at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Apteva#Motion to close. Dicklyon (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closure specifically by an admin now requested. See this section at WP:AN. NoeticaTea? 03:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Noetica (talk · contribs) after a topic-ban was proposed in this AN section. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Needs an appropiate closure. Eraserhead1's closures on DYK caused spark, so any other administrator is recommended. --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Discussion is now archived at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 86#Let's extend the 5 day viability period to 10 days. Armbrust The Homonculus 04:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know why anyone would close anything at DYK to be honest. You guys will just complain regardless and the behaviour was so bad in the last closure that you guys couldn't agree sensible conditions for a review of the last closure.
- Additionally, you, the requester, made no effort to defend either the closure or the review. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- To be clear there is no particular problem with challenging my closure - we all make mistakes. However at the end of the day you guys were responsible for the review request. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- There's no spark here. Done Drmies (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This is overdue. --George Ho (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not anymore. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#Cleaning up the format and offer their opinion and offer suggestions for next steps? It appears that the initial call for comments there didn't yield many after a couple of weeks so one editor viewed that as approval and has been making the changes. This was challenged by another editor and more comments have just recently been left on this. There's an edit war about this and it's a bit testy so outside review and suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Endorse the request As a second editor I really didn't pay attention to the proposal (Didn't have a RfC tag or summary, significantly deviated from current conventions, no other significant support). I did sit up and take notice once the idea started getting imposed over reversion of bold activity claiming "Vote consensus". Of note there is the sabre of Community Sanctions that could be rattled around in the sheath to encourage editors to stop being disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Endorse Lets re-vote and come to a real consensus instead of a one-vote decision.Luchuslu (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Question Here's the issue. People are coming to the group and actively participating. If this isn't being done correctly, then what is the correct way? Everybody should have a right to put suggestion for improvement before the group, and if the group isn't opposed to it, then shouldn't we be able to move forward. Can 1 person veto improvement ideas? With the way everything appears, 1 person can just keep reverting back to the old format, and create an editing war if you try to move forward with the improvement. It almost seems as if in order to make an improvement you have to have every single person agree to it, and it really shouldn't be that way. This isn't the only issue going on with the project. We have multiple issues going on, and I am continually trying to get everybody to come up with a compromise that everyone can live with, but we have a couple people who believe everything should be done their way and are unwilling to compromise with the rest of us. If somebody looks through the discussion, we have an editor that openly blames the problems on the newer editors.
"Quite honestly, the WikiProject was going fine until the early to mid part of the year. Since that time there has been an influx of new editors, mostly through various MMA forums, who are ignorant of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as well as the discussions that have developed over the years within this WikiProject. These new editors (pointing to no one in particular because a number of them have been indefinitely blocked) come in, think that they know what is best and start dictating that things will go their way or they will be disruptive. That disruptiveness has resulted in the WikiProject getting extra attention from admins who are starting to not put up with the drama. There have been a number of calls to nuke the entire project space, which is something Wikipedia can do if the broader consensus is there. What these new editors should be doing, in my not so humble opinion, is to ask questions about why certain guidelines have developed and learn how to improve existing articles that do meet the existing notability guidelines. "
I left off the editors signature, but that is a good example of part of the problem. The opinions and views of newer editors needs to be taken into account. The guidelines for consensus specifically say that the consensus can change as the editors change. Just because somebody has been registered longer doesn't mean that they should have the right to dictate the policy of the group. Newer editors are constantly be threatened to be blocked or reported if we don't drop our point of view and do what we are told. They link all these guidelines, but more than 75% of the time those guidelines don't even apply. However, when some of us newer editors tried to point out guidelines for notability, we were told that when they came up with it, that isn't what they really meant. They try to use the guidelines when it backs their objective but want the guidelines ignored when it doesn't work in their favor. The project is a mess, and there are a few of us trying to improve it, trying to get people to work together and all we are getting is a line drawn in the sand and being told its their way or the highway. The project does need somebody from the outside to come in and facilitate diplomacy, compromise and to ensure that all the editors have an equal say in the project.Willdawg111 (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the consensus has reached. --George Ho (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Education of the deaf#Merger proposal (initiated 21 April 2012; see also the 28 October RfC at Talk:Education of the deaf#RfC: Deciding on the target name). Please consider enclosing the entire discussion in closing templates to demonstrate to the RfC participants that you have reviewed the entire discussion beginning from Talk:Education of the deaf#Merger proposal. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done Closed as Merge with Deaf Education. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 07:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Watson#RfC: Can other early Greenpeace members used as a source on Paul Watson? (initiated 19 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done Closed as Oppose using primary sources to contradict reliable sources. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 08:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Art Pope#RfC: How to describe donations to various groups? (initiated 23 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Madonna (entertainer)#Lack of neutrality in this article (initiated 23 November 2012)? The RfC asks whether the article Madonna (entertainer) complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Grant Shapps/Archive 1#RfC: Internet activity - undue? (initiated 25 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/RfC (initiated 12 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Denny's#RfC: How should the health care section of this article be handled? (initiated 12 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done Closed as Option 3, or Oppose inclusion of controversy, per WP:NOT#NEWS #2. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Socialism#Request for comment on material above this section (initiated 21 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Feminism#Etymology (see Talk:Feminism#Request for comment on etymology section; initiated 8 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#Top critics (initiated 16 December 2012; see Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#RFC: Is it relevant to mention top critics in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey?)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of whistleblowers#Inclusion criteria? (initiated 20 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done -- Trevj (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 17#Request for comment - Pray the Gay Away (initiated 26 November 2012)? Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada#RfC: How should teams be listed if they play in a different state/province/district than in their name? (initiated 21 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hanakotoba#RFC: Is it worth keeping this article? (initiated 13 December 2012)? The discussion is about whether the page should be redirected to Language of flowers. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RfC on Creative professionals (initiated 12 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Change 'contributions' to 'edits' (initiated 27 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California#RfC: deprecate articles by importance (initiated 16 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done Closed as No Consensus to deprecate article importance. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 13:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Open for over a month (including the relisting). Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Closed as "No consensus". – Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Religion#Image (initiated 7 December 2012)? The question posed was: "Do you prefer a Twenty symbol or Twelve symbol image?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:In My City#RfC: Is Promotional campaign irrelevant? (initiated 16 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
open for over a month, including the relisting. Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
open for over a month, including the relisting. Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion was placed on hold pending a wider set of discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaelic games#Article_and_category_naming_conventions. Those wider discussions have now been closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 26#Northern_Ireland_Hurlers_by_.22GAA_county.22
Discussion was placed on hold pending a wider set of discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaelic games#Article_and_category_naming_conventions. Those wider discussions have now been closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I opened this RM close to a month ago, it was immediately supported by the page's creator and only significant contributor. However, not long after it was opposed by a dynamic IP with no prior edit history, who suddenly appeared after User:JoshuSasori was indef blocked for harassing/threatening me. The IP has been continuing to harass me on other articles, to the point where one has been protected and several of his/her IPs have been blocked. The move has received no other opposition.elvenscout742 (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Already done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cydia#RfC (initiated 13 December 2012)? Please review Talk:Cydia##RfC meta-discussion as well. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Ban lifting discussion got archived without closing
ResolvedBot archived the ban lift discussion without closure. Depending on whether you count the nominator there were 4 or 5 supports and 1 oppose. Discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Request to revoke Wikipedia:Administrators.27 noticeboard.2FIncidentArchive706.23Two topic bans for TonyTheTiger.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- It would have been nice if the parties involved in the original dispute were notified. FWIW I strongly oppose lifting Tony's topic ban on FS but support lifting his ban on pictures about himself --Guerillero |My Talk 17:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was uninvolved in the ban lift discussion. Thus, I don't know who was contacted. Can you comment on my behavior in recent times that leads you to oppose lifting the ban or are you just grinding an axe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see you returning to the loosely proposed Featured Sound II project to be productive. While your standards have risen I still feel that you are a star chaser. The standards were low at FS I and they will be lower in FS II for the first few months. The standards should rise in a atmosphere where no one is entitled to featured content and project members are willing to engage in two way communication.--Guerillero | My Talk 19:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- If your objection is that you expect me to cause problems upon my return, I think you will be quite surprised by my proposed revamping of FS. Of course, I am banned from talking about them, but I am pretty sure you will be surprised. I have not seen any loosely proposed FS II, but have an independent propsal. From what I see FS has had no activity in almost a year so I don't know where this FS II project is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- This situation is ridiculous. There is obviously no consensus for any bans on TonyTheTiger, and rather good consensus against it. I don't think anyone can reasonably consider Tony under any sort of ban whatsoever at this point. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Procedurally, some admin other than you has to come by and say. "Yes I thought about what everybody has said on the matter and you are now unbanned." The discussion was never closed. I believe it has to be closed or someone needs to put a message on my talk page unbanning me before I can add my two cents to any FS discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- This situation is ridiculous. There is obviously no consensus for any bans on TonyTheTiger, and rather good consensus against it. I don't think anyone can reasonably consider Tony under any sort of ban whatsoever at this point. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- If your objection is that you expect me to cause problems upon my return, I think you will be quite surprised by my proposed revamping of FS. Of course, I am banned from talking about them, but I am pretty sure you will be surprised. I have not seen any loosely proposed FS II, but have an independent propsal. From what I see FS has had no activity in almost a year so I don't know where this FS II project is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see you returning to the loosely proposed Featured Sound II project to be productive. While your standards have risen I still feel that you are a star chaser. The standards were low at FS I and they will be lower in FS II for the first few months. The standards should rise in a atmosphere where no one is entitled to featured content and project members are willing to engage in two way communication.--Guerillero | My Talk 19:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was uninvolved in the ban lift discussion. Thus, I don't know who was contacted. Can you comment on my behavior in recent times that leads you to oppose lifting the ban or are you just grinding an axe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have been unarchived and returned to the original discussion page.--TonyTheTiger(T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is now resolved. I have been [1].--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive#Request for Comment: Result of the Offensive(initiated 25 November 2012)? The question posed was:
What is the best way to accurately describe the result of this specific offensive? Was it a "strategic Soviet victory" or not? How should that be reflected in the infobox and the article text?
Thanks,Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I contacted Lord Roem (talk · contribs) who indicated he would close the discussion. Cunard (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, if anyone would like to close it, please feel free to do so. There was very little discussion though that got anywhere near consensus. :-/ Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done Consensus is for "ceasefire, resulting in Moscow armistice". VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 23:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, if anyone would like to close it, please feel free to do so. There was very little discussion though that got anywhere near consensus. :-/ Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor close this move discussion that's been open for well over a month? The nom has been indef blocked for disruptive behaviour (on this and other pages), and 3 have voted against it. 2 voted for, but one is an IP with no prior contributions and is under investigation as a possible block-evading sockpuppet of the nom. If consensus isn't don't move, I don't think we're ever going to get anything other than no consensus. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Closed as "don't move" by Cúchullain --j⚛e deckertalk 22:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Finite-difference time-domain method#External links to vendors (initiated 13 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Move request has run it's seven day course (UTC) I am requesting a close to this heated move debate. There is a bit to go through. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:VPP#Do the WP:CIV and WP:NPA policies apply to administrators? and related subthreads
This needs to be stopped. This is not a policy discussion, it is a discussion of whether I and another admin should be in trouble right now. There is no chance of any actual policy change coming from this because one has not even been proposed, it is just a way to keep talking about a minor incident. All ll the parties actually involved were done with it days ago.It does not need a closing statement, it just needs to be closed and preferably hatted as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's been closed now, maybe not exactly how you wanted it, but it's closed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- close enough. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons? Please also consider John Carter (talk · contribs)'s comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons#Possible wrapup:
I think that it would make sense, sometime in the future, to have the request for comment here be gone over by someone, possibly uninvolved, who could "boil down" the various comments into clear proposals.
This could facilitate a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons 2, which would have a clearer scope and outcome. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I made the closure quite general as there was no specific proposal, and only a few people commented here and there on actual possible changes, which made it impossible to put a true consensus to boil down x situation has consensus to take x action, and why I pointed to other pages instead of a big RfC. Plus, if I put them into actual proposals, I feel like I would be losing my neutrality in closing it, as I would have to inject my opinion into it somehow, which is not proper. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages#RFC: Concerning banned and indeffed users (initiated 16 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- It would be appreciated if an experienced editor would look at this RFC to determine what, if any, consensus exists. --Nouniquenames 11:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- No consensus. The choices are scattered all over and are not focused on any clear choice. Apteva (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Ugh. I read the whole thing and then discovered that I was practically the last person to comment there. I closed it anyway, it has been sitting for a very long time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
If an admin could take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review and determine if there is consensus it would be appreciated. Note that as the discussion deals specifically with non-admin closing, it may be prudent for non-admin closers to avoid closing it. Monty845 23:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Note that discussion was moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12 some time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Closing Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages (initiated 15 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging of non-notable albums (initiated 16 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BLP issues at Anita Sarkeesian (initiated 18 January 2012), especially with regards to this topic ban proposal?
If there is a consensus for an editing restriction, please log it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log.
Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- This was closed by Mark Arsten, and is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#BLP_issues_at_Anita_Sarkeesian. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
We have started a discussion about 3 or 4 weeks ago on whether or not http://www.airlineroute.net is to be used as a reliable source for adding new routes from airlines and airports. We have tried to come up with a consensus but the discussion seems to have gone stale. Editors seem to have different opinions on it and we just seem to get to a conclusion. This was also discussed numerous times in the past as well and no conclusion either. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Sorry, that's a bit too much of a muddle to call it anything but a no consensus. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
This should be an easy one. Informal proposal initiated January 11, 2013 with respondents !voting 10-0 in favor of "oppose". Thanks! Location (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Version#RfC: Would a standard template for version history tables be helpful for software articles? (initiated 28 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2 (initiated 21 November 2012)? After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- This has been open for two and a half months, which is about twice as long as is likely to be productive. Step-by-step instructions for closing RFC/Us are listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. I'd close it myself except that I've had positive interactions with the accused in the past, and I don't want Rhode's accusers to think that the closer was biased against them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert (initiated 12 December 2012)? After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
open for over a month, including the relisting. Frietjes (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
open for over a month, including the relisting. Frietjes (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion stalled since 1 February. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- closed by Mike Selinker. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion stalled since 1 February. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- closed by Mike Selinker. Frietjes (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion stalled since 30 January. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- closed by Mike Selinker. Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
1906 (film) merge discussion
Would a previously uninvolved admin. take a look at this merge discussion and close it, please? It has now been dormant for nearly 2 months. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Done— Laura Scudder | talk 22:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:BP#Request for comment (initiated 16 December 2012)? The original question posed was:
How the 'Environmental record', 'Accidents', and 'Political record' sections of this article, taking account the existing main articles of subsections of these sections, should be cleaned-up and/or developed to ensure their compliance with different Wikipedia policies, inter alia WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP
Another editor rephrased the question to be: "How about, 'Are the above WP policies being properly applied to this article?'" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done Drmies (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hezekiah's Tunnel#RfC: categorization (initiated 1 December 2012)? The question posed was: "Should this page be included in Category:Tunnels in Israel?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done (the answer is 42) Drmies (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Editing the article is under special restrictions (please see top of the talk page) so an admin should close this discussion (to prevent any misinterpretation) and copy the proposed text into the locked article. The consensus seems well established with an !vote of 5 supports and 1 or 2 opposes. One of the opposes is pretty straight-forward, he wants to solve every problem in the article first before dealing with this one, this strikes me as impossible and against common practice at Wikipedia. The 2nd oppose hasn't actually said "oppose", in fact he has said he doesn't want to derail anything, but he has put in walls and walls of text (about 30 long edits on the page - sorry) which simply don't make any sense to me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
A dated discussion that should be closed by an uninvolved third party. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This RM regarding the naming of Azerbaijani administrative districts has ran for over two weeks without opposition. Would someone be so kind as to close? --BDD (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Jenks24 (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Ys (series)#Which version of text is more preferable with respect to grammar and the MoS?? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Already done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Been open for a mounts. 4 supports (including nom) 1 oppose. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Already done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
After over a month of listing, consensus seems clear against the proposal and for restoring the previous name of the article. I'll leave the particular call up to the closing admin, of course, but it's ready for an assessment either way. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Already done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the consensus has reached. --George Ho (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Consensus probably reached already. --George Ho (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done indeed, that was an easy one. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is pretty well established, voting died down about 4 days ago. The phrase "If the image is of a living person it must only be used for the top item" would need to be removed from the instructions at WP:ITN. --Jayron32 20:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Reading the detail of comments so far, there seems to be a strong consensus for the deletion of the article title - the subject in question simply never existed. The broader discussion about whether aspects of the subject can/should be covered in more detail elsewhere can (and will) be continued on relevant talk pages. I cannot see a single argument for keeping the article, just four variations of delete with a variety of comments about what should happen after that. But the complexity of the initial discussion, I think, has discouraged further contributions and it has now been relisted for a second time. Some guidance would be appreciated. Stalwart111 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done by Black Kite. Thanks! Stalwart111 21:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This discussion was scheduled to end February 21. It's now February 21. It's quite a lengthy discussion to read and digest, so my thanks to the person closing this in advance. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done by User:Geni. Legoktm (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
More than two weeks of discussion and we came to a seeming consensus over this yet two participants still refuse to concede the point. We need an independent person who is uninvolved to please look at this and decide if a consensus was reached and to initiate it if there is one. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- This one was hard, but I think it's done by now. — ΛΧΣ21 06:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
May we request an administrator or experienced editor, whichever is required; to come review and close this discussion and voting. The question is: Should the Simple Wiki be put at top of the languages bar and this has been open since December 29, 2012. Needless to say, I thank in advance the volunteer who takes this on. There is much discussion and many votes in both camps. I'm requesting as an interested party who took part, because the last comments from yesterday seem to indicate we are ready to close, but the opener asked how to take that step. I will post back there that I have requested this here. All the best Fylbecatulous talk 17:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Open for over a month. Need an uninvolved admin to close.--v/r - TP 22:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I have just closed this RFC/U. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Open for over a month, and parties have come to an agreement, but need an uninvolved admin to close. --Rschen7754 01:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done Drmies (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st (initiated 19 November 2012)?
Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#Darkstar1st: violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to get the point, tendentious editing. It may be best for an admin to close this RfC since a non-admin close was reverted.
After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done Drmies (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Open for nearly 4 weeks, discussion stalled since 30 January.
May be suitable for relisting? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done closed on 26 Feb by User:Fayenatic london. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Open for nearly 4 weeks, discussion stalled since 9 February.
May be suitable for relisting? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Closed on 26 Feb by User:Fayenatic london. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion stalled since 27 January. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Discussion has been closed. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
open for over four weeks, including the relisting. Frietjes (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Closed on 3 March by Ruslik_0. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
open for over two weeks. Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Closed on 7 March by Salix. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
discussion has stalled. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Closed on 28 February by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion stalled since February 1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done closed by User:Fayenatic london on 27 Feb]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 30#Category:People_honoured_with_a_mineral_name
Discussion stalled since 4th February. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done closed by User:Fayenatic london on 27 Feb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Now open for over two weeks. Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done Closed by Ruslik0. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
A nice and easy one. AIRcorn (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. You wuz right. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Valentine's Day RfDs
Four of the six remaining redirects listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 14 have clear consensus and are awaiting closure. Not sure about the last two. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- They're all taken care of (not by me). Drmies (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States/Archive 42#Request for Comment -- Introduction first paragraph (initiated 4 December 2012)? The question posed was:
Should this article refer to the United States as consisting of fifty states and a federal district, or also include the territories as well? It presently notes the country as possessing, rather than being partially comprised of, the territories.
Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe this needs a formal close, the entire RFC is the same two users going around in endless circles. Best to just let it lie in the archives. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for taking a look at this. I've archive this. Cunard (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prisoner X#RFC: Move to Ben Zygier? (initiated 19 February 2013, following discussion that began on 14 February 2013)? - Evad37 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not done Discussion has started back up with another title proposal on the table. Laura Scudder | talk 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am pleased to say it has been moved. It would be good if an uninvolved person closed the RFC!! Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Koch brothers#RfC: status of redirect (initiated 19 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peter Sellers#Lead image (initiated 21 January 2013; see Talk:Peter Sellers#RfC: Should the lead image be changed?). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of pantheists#Carl Sagan (initiated 24 January 2013 )? The question posed was: "Should Sagan be included in the List of pantheists" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brilliant Dadashova#RfC on birth date (initiated 28 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stephen King#Removal of signature image - request for comments (initiated 11 February 2013)? The RfC initiator closed the discussion with the comment:
Thanks to everyone who participated in this RFC. I'm closing it since there haven't been activity in a while.
However, the discussion's consensus has not been summarized. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Chris Claremont#1990s photograph (initiated 30 January 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "Hi - I found a historical picture of Claremont and wanted to post it on the article, but it was reverted here[2]." The discussion was about whether the image File:Loz claremont 199s.jpg should be restored to the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Organic milk#RFC (initiated 14 January 2013). The question posed was:
Is the following content:
Nutritional differences between organic and conventional produce appear minimal, but studies examining this have been limited by inadequate controls for the many subtle potential confounders, such as moisture, maturity of the produce, and measurement techniques. No direct evidence of a clinically relevant nutritional difference between organic and conventional produce exists.
sourced to this article "Organic Foods: Health and Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages" in the journal Pediatrics (the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics) on-topic and appropriate for inclusion in this article on organic milk?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:California State University, Northridge#RfC: Should Northridge or Los Angeles be used as the location in the infobox? (4 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#RfC on two images (initiated 20 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel#RfC on Rushton review (initiated 5 February 2013)? The question posed was: "Should this article include a brief mention of hereditarian J. Philippe Rushton's review of this book?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#RFC (initiated 8 February 2013)? The discussion is about "the reliability of the Providence Foundation as a source on the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Traditional marriage#RfC (initiated 3 March 2013)? The last comment was made on 14 March 2013. The opening poster wrote:
the term "traditional marriage" as used in discussions of legal definitions of marriage in western, predominantly/historically christian, countries -- and, specifically, the United States -- is not a neutral term and should not be used without explanation/contextualization. note that previous extensive discussion of ths issue, along with suggestions for contextualization and alternate terms, can be found on the Traditional marriage talk page.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Lamest edit war I've seen in awhile. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kármán vortex street#RfC: Should the gallery in this article be removed? (initiated 20 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Big Bang Theory#RfC: The last paragraph of the lead (initiated 11 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:When_Harry_Met_Sally...#Merge soundtrack? (initiated 17 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mayor of Leicester#RfC: Should the article have a "History" section? (initiated 28 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Transportation of the President of the United States#Merger of Army One, Navy One, Coast Guard One (initiated 29 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata interwiki RFC#Support or Oppose (initiated 17 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#Upgrade to Policy (initiated 27 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Do not create hoaxes/Archive 1#This should be policy (initiated 17 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Placing a "Travel guide" link to Wikivoyage next to the geographic coordinates in articles on cities and countries (initiated 17 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti (initiated 1 November 2012)? Please consider Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#BLP issues at Anita Sarkeesian and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti/Additional Evidence in your close.
After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Several users, myself included, have considered that sanctions are needed for the editor in question. Given that nearly all of the commenters at RFC/U are practically unanimous and the fact that Niemti has been disruptive, several have agreed that being editors who make valuable contributions does not excuse them for unacceptable or incivil behavior. If I shouldn't be advocating a position on the close in this section, let me know and I'll strike the comment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This should be closed. It has long passed the point of usefulness. The editor in question has been banned once, sockpuppeted to evade the ban, was inexplicably allowed to continue editing as the sockpuppet, and has been repeatedly sanctioned with escalating blocks for long-term, continued misconduct and incivility under both identities. That can't be allowed to continue. But, the RFC/U now appears to this outsider to consists principally of piling on. I will post a proposed closure statement that AE or ANI be asked to at minimum convert his block to a ban for a non-trivial length of time, and topic-ban him should he be allowed to return. Fladrif (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Richard Dawkins#RfC; NPOV and Consistency in the article (initiated 10 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Requesting an uninvolved admin to review and close this proposed change to the Featured Picture Criteria. It's become a heated debate on both sides. — raekyt 06:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to closers
Thank you, Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs), Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs), Sjones23 (talk · contribs), Nouniquenames (talk · contribs), Vanisaac (talk · contribs), Armbrust (talk · contribs), Hex (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), Kww (talk · contribs), IronGargoyle (talk · contribs), X! (talk · contribs), JzG (talk · contribs), Spartaz (talk · contribs), Seraphimblade (talk · contribs), BDD (talk · contribs), Futuretrillionaire (talk · contribs), Σ (talk · contribs), IRWolfie- (talk · contribs), Srich32977 (talk · contribs), Nyttend (talk · contribs), Jeepday (talk · contribs), Drmies (talk · contribs), and Noetica (talk · contribs), for your closes. Cunard (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact (initiated 16 December 2012)? The opening poster wrote:
A previous discussion on the featured-article status of this article resulted in a refusal of this status primarily because of a dispute regarding whether or not the title made assumptions whether or not extraterrestrial contact had occurred, or whether the reference to cultural impact implied that the article should only discuss arts, literature, and society, as opposed to science and technology. Please discuss here what would be a better title in light of the linked discussion.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
ResolvedWould an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of people who have been called a polymath#How should we format this list? (initiated 9 January 2013)? Please also consider the related discussion Talk:List of people who have been called a polymath#Suggestions on improving this Wikisortable layout wanted in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
ResolvedWould an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abe Vigoda#RfC (initiated 14 January 2013)? The question posed was: "Should the lead section mention that "a website" was started to announce whether Vigoda was alive?". Thanks, 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of atheist philosophers#This list (initiated 5 February 2013)? The question posed was: "Should this list be at List of atheist philosophers or List of atheist and agnostic philosophers?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Chutznik (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Carly Foulkes#RFC - personal wardrobe relevance (initiated 9 February 2013)? The question posed was:
This Request for Comment surrounds the following statement:
:"Despite the association with pink dresses due to the T-Mobile ad campaign, she claims not to wear pink in her personal wardrobe."
The question: is the information encyclopedic? Is it sexist trivia lent inordinate weight in the article?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Cunard, nice try. This is too stupid to be true, and I'm amazed that we allow certain editors (you know who) to live out their fantasies in which every detail about a specific woman is deemed encyclopedic, and their articles raised to GA level. Someone else should close this RfC as being outdated since overtaken by the facts--someone's ownership over articles about young, sexy women who are on TV. Yes, dear AN watchers, it was deemed that that sentence was of encyclopedic value; that she wore leather in high school apparently was not, though it was equally verified. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Done VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 20:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ford#Is Ford Motor Company a primary topic for the term Ford? (initiated 12 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Chutznik (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ping Fu#Rfc: Should Bend, Not Break exist as a content fork of Ping Fu or should it be merged/redirected to Ping Fu ??? (initiated 6 March 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 11#RfC on content split without consensus (initiated 7 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Chutznik (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Flying car (aircraft)#Request for comment (initiated 17 February 2013)? The questions posed were: "What criteria should be established to include a concept flying car in this article? Is a designer's proposal sufficient or should we require a physical model, third-party press coverage, or other? Should physical plausibility be examined by Wikipedia?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like this was a nearly unanimous decision, and has already been summarized. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 06:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of Vojvodina#Request For Comment re: WikiProject Banners on this page (initiated 5 February 2013)? The question posed was: "Which WikiProject banners should be included on this talk page?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by someone else. Chutznik (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:NGC 6357#RfC: Advertizement/petition (initiated 3 March 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
At first glance, I thought I'd close this myself. The RfC has ran for a month, and there's definitely not consensus for the changes proposed. WP:NOTAVOTE, but editors who have commented are against the changes 12-15, with essentially no one neutral. So the question is more whether there's no consensus or actual consensus against. The real reason I didn't close, though, is that the most recent comment was today (though the previous one was two days ago). I'll leave this to an administrator's discretion. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done Consensus was against any change. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CartoonDiablo (initiated 20 January 2012)?
After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Please restore Template:The Accüsed, as the one week discussion period did not lapse. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not done. I would suggest speaking directly to the admin who made the early close and then consider WP:DRV if that is not satisfactory, although I wonder what the issue is in light of your own remarks at the CFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nantucket#RFC: Guidelines for adding entries to the list of notable residents and recurring visitors (initiated 11 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Done Chutznik (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jaguar Cars#RfC: Jaguar subsidiary name (initiated 22 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Herero and Namaqua Genocide#RfC: Split the page? (initiated 28 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of brightest stars/Archive 2#Request for comment: Listing individual components of stars which are seen as single points from earth (initiated 22 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Perfection#RfC: Should the "Perfection#Perfection paradoxes in technology" section be completely deleted? (initiated 1 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus ast Talk:Colonialism#Proposed merger with Imperialism (initiated 8 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably the consensus has reached. --George Ho (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Did the consensus already reach? If so, close it. --George Ho (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Requesting a review of the closure and the level of consensus determined. Inconsistencies with the closing statement are detailed at the bottom. Spoke to the closing user on his talk page, but didn't get much of a response. Osiris (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not done WP:Closure review happens thataway, not on the talk page. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 03:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- What talk page? The user's talk page? Your link suggests otherwise. And this is transcluded at the top of WP:AN. As the closing user suggested, I posted here. You know, it's been about a month now anyway. I think I'll just chalk this one up as a botched NAC and walk away. Osiris (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Start a new thread on WP:AN called something like "Closure review of Simple English proposal at Village Pump". Provide a link to the previous discussion (which is in the archive now), and a neutrally worded assessment of why you think the closure was incorrect. Administrators, not the original participants, need to be able to look it over and comment on whether the closure should be changed. A review needs to happen at WP:Administrators' Noticeboard, not where the original RfC was posted (ie, the talk page mentioned above). Is that clear? PS, I had completely forgotten that this board gets transcluded to the top of WP:AN when we get backlogged. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 23:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- What talk page? The user's talk page? Your link suggests otherwise. And this is transcluded at the top of WP:AN. As the closing user suggested, I posted here. You know, it's been about a month now anyway. I think I'll just chalk this one up as a botched NAC and walk away. Osiris (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#New RfC (initiated 22 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion is now archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_12#New_RfC. Armbrust The Homonculus 09:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics/GMO articles (initiated 3 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is pretty stale. I was involved in the RFC so can't close it, but we appear to have reached a general agreement on most of the issues raised. AIRcorn (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Actresses categorization (initiated 17 October 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "I propose this motion to drop the restriction on actresses in WP:CATGRS so that we could restore Category:Actresses and foster all relevant subcats, like Category:Actresses by country." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: this is now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 101#Actresses categorization. StAnselm (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on the article layout of Eurovision Song Contest by country articles (initiated 13 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#inclusion of prehistoric terms in history of country templates and vice versa (initiated 14 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC on era style (BC/AD and BCE/CE) (initiated 28 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_139#RfC on era style (BC/AD and BCE/CE). Armbrust The Homunculus 10:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Formatting of URLs in Infoboxes (initiated 14 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microformats#Proposal: citation microformat (initiated 5 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RfC: Section headings for horizontal navigation templates (initiated 10 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China-related articles#Request for Comment: Regarding WP:NC-TW (initiated 18 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 57#RFC: Soundtrack covers in articles about other media (films, video games, etc.) (initiated 7 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:The Core Contest#Request for Comment: Future runnings of the Core Contest (initiated 2 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- The Core Contest is open; no need to close the preliminary RFC. Chutznik (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Would an administrator assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#GarnetAndBlack: Incivility, gaming the system, ownership, bad faith bias in edits, retaliatory editing?
If there is a consensus for an editing restriction, please log it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.
Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the main page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It was moved to this location from AN because inactivity had led to repeated archiving. Seems the discussion has largely ceased and should be resolved with some finding of consensus.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Worth noting that there were quite a few comments after the first archival. Close if you must, but I, biased as I am, think it'd be a shame to give up just yet on all the well-thought-out support rationales we've seen so far. (Unless the reviewing admin thinks the support votes win out, in which case I'm all for closure.
) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Would an administrator or an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia Talk:Administrators#Proposal for discussion regarding admin action by other admins who disagree (initiated early January 2013)? Thanks, Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
A request was made for neutral editors to provide an opinion on two sentences of text in Maafa 21. As assessment of the text and a recommendation for altering it has been given. Interpersonal conflicts that started elsewhere are now clogging the forum and further progress on this is unlikely to be made at this time. Thanks! Location (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Propose: Where multiple pronunciation of a name exist... (initiated 15 January 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
Propose: that WP:PRONOUNCE be changed for articles about people for whom there are both an Anglicized(i.e. Bastardized) and Native pronunciation of a PERSON'S NAME (also applies to living people); that the Native IPA be the only pronunciation given in the lead and all other pronunciations starting with the Anglicized be listed in a footnote attached to the Native IPA. Or at least that the native IPA be listed first.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#RfC: How much trivia belongs in number articles? (initiated 31 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#RfC - Alumni (initiated 26 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'll take care of this. Chutznik (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/February#Request for comment (initiated 8 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 40#RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal (initiated 9 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 36#Requesting further review of pronoun usage (initiated 4 March 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:File names#RFC: Criterion 1 (initiated 1 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 66#RFC (initiated 7 January 2013)? The question posed was: "Should we have a time limit for relisting debates (especially ones that have not closed yet." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RfC: Proposal for RfA conduct clarification (amendments to editnotice and addition to Template:RfA) (initiated 26 February 2013)? There have eben no comments for two weeks; the essay Wikipedia:Silence and consensus may be relevant. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- But there's now further opposition, so it'll perhaps depend whether there's silence regarding that too! Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for removal of adminship/Straw poll (initiated 8 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll (initiated 8 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposal for discussion regarding admin action by other admins who disagree (initiated 31 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC on shared accounts for use by minors (initiated 3 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items#Proposal: Decommission ITN/R (initiated 11 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 104#Proposal:Create a capability and process to expunge a block from someone's record when all agree that it was an error (initiated 11 January 2013)? The subsection at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 104#My premature summary, overreaching interpretation and suggested next step / revised proposal is strongly supported. Please mention https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44759 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Clerks (initiated 17 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
RfC open since November 2009. A recent MfD closed as "Wrong venue" is also relevant: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs_Cover-versions_and_multiple-renditions. Underlying question is whether cover versions of songs ever deserve their own articles. Secondary issue is whether the Wikproject section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs#Cover-versions.2Fmultiple-renditions should be moved to WP:NM, since it looks like the Wikiproject guideline is being observed with the force of content policy. Redirects WP:SONGCOVER and WP:COVERDISCUSS will also need to be tidied up. --Surturz (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- UPDATE: recent discussion here found consensus to add a line to WP:NSONGS to indicate that normally separate renditions are all merged into a single article about the song. That probably trumps everything that has gone before. --Surturz (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 137#Proposal to prevent recurrent editwarring and confusion by adjusting "Era style" section in MOS:NUM (initiated 5 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 137#Translation of patronymics (initiated 20 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot#Synthesis and sources (initiated 19 October 2012 and a subsection of which is Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot#Request for Comment) and Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot#Request for Comment 2 (initiated 15 November 2012). I have not read the two discussions, though both may be related to the same issue and should likely be considered by the same closer. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: First discussion is now archived at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_4#Synthesis_and_sources. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Meša Selimović#Ethnicity and understanding of "nacionalnost" in former Yugoslavia (initiated 13 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Discussion now archived at Talk:Meša Selimović/Archives/2012/November. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of indigenous peoples#RfC: Should the Palestinians be included on the list on the basis of tacit UN recognition since at least 2009? (initiated 14 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkish people#RFC: Related ethnic groups (initiated 4 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chiropractic#RfC perspective from new set of eyes (initiated 7 January 2013)? The RfC tag was removed, and tempers seem to be running high; see Talk:Chiropractic#What else do you suggest?. Feel free to move this to the premature requests section if a close at this time would be premature. Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trouble (Leona Lewis song)#How is iTunes messed up (initiated 1 December 2012)? There is disagreement over whether iTunes is an acceptable source to use for the song's release date? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations#RfC:Is the discussed GetEducated.com article credible to be used as a Reliable Source? (initiated 17 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I commented there, but it still needs another pair of eyes and hands. Chutznik (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nayirah (testimony)#RfC: Nayirah (testimony) and Citizens for a Free Kuwait (initiated 16 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:La Luz del Mundo#RfC: Should the Controversies section be merged into the History section? (initiated 20 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a great deal of material that has primarily been edited by User:Media-hound- thethird, probably a political activist who has now been indef-banned for POV-pushing and WP:BATTLE. The consensus is clear. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
From Proposed Mergers noticeboard
Copied here by GenQuest "Talk to Me" 20:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC) without comment:
A merge request between Wuffa of East Anglia and Wuffingas was proposed, without the normal procedure being followed. Several editors have opposed or commented on the proposed merge. I have closed the discussion as nothing has been added to it for several weeks. Please can an experienced administrator help reach a consensus? Hel-hama (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Link to discussion: Talk:Wuffa of East Anglia#Merger proposal. Cunard (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
There is even consesus on closure. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close the discussion at Talk:Heart_and_Soul_(1938_song)#Merge per this suggestion? Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)/Archive 1#Request for comment (initiated 30 December 2012). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Puerto Ricans/Archive 4#Splitting this article into multiple articles (initiated 3 January 2013). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John Calvin#RfC: Including Anglican sainthood / Lutheran commemoration (initiated 1 February 2013)? The question posed was: "There are two questions here. (1) Should the categories that are currently in the article (Category:Anglican saints, Category:Renewers of the church) be retained? (2) Should this information be presented in the article (which it currently isn't)?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas#RfC: Use of Nationalist/Revisionist sources on Juan Manuel de Rosas (initiated 4 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jared Diamond#RfC - Is BLP violated by mentioning dropped lawsuit against Diamond? (initiated 11 February 2013)? The question posed was: "Can the 2009 libel lawsuit against Diamond be mentioned in the article without violating the WP:BLP policy? If so, how much detail should be included?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#RfC on the lead (initiated 18 February 2013)? See also the close request at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Closing above discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources (initiated 27 February 2013)? The discussion is about this edit to the article. Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Public Relations Society of America#RFC Take 2 (initiated 30 December 2012)? The questions posed were:
- What is the preferred location for the Controversy section?
- Is the current controversy section neutral? If not, how can it be improved?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pi Kappa Alpha#RfC: Weight and treatment of controversial incidents (initiated 7 January 2013)?
Please also consider the RfC closure of Talk:Pi Kappa Alpha#Request for Comment: Butt-chugging incident, which was mentioned in the "Weight and treatment of controversial incidents" RfC.
The question posed was: "Should controversial incidents at individual chapters of an organization with over 200 local chapters be included while the article is so short?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam International Airport#RFC: Destination map and airport images (initiated 1 February 2013)? The question posed was: " Is the Destination Map and the Image of the Airport (Image 1, Image 2) not per Wikipedia:AIRPORT-CONTENT and should be removed?" Please note: The images linked in the opening post are red links, but I cannot find entries in the deletion log for them. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marseille#RfC: Is mention of unrest relevant to this article? (initiated 21 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles#Use Mapping L.A. as reliable source? (initiated 29 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aćif Hadžiahmetović#RfC: Iron Cross claim (initiated 11 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rape culture#Request for comment: Rape culture and incidents by nation (initiated 28 January 2013)? Please see also Talk:Rape culture#Proposal : Wrap-Up. There are also two other RfCs on the page Talk:Rape culture#Request for comment II and Talk:Rape culture#Request for comment III. "Request for comment III" is ongoing, but I do not know how these two RfCs will factor into closing the first one. Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shark Island Extermination Camp#Request for comment: what is the common name of the historical camp at Shark Island? (initiated 23 February 2013)? Please consider Talk:Shark Island Extermination Camp#Requested move in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Buchenwald Trial#Removing of external links (initiated 12 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Al-Ahbash#RfC (initiated 16 February 2013)? The RfC discusses merging (among other topics); see the 17:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC) comment by BoogaLouie (talk · contribs) who said "I'm a randomly-selected-to-comment editor". Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Look in the talk page archive at [3]. Chutznik (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming#RFC: Is the lead currently sufficiently neutrally written? (initiated 20 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming#RfC: Propose to move Second Paragraph to Scientific Evaluation Section (initiated 8 February 2013)? One commenter wrote on 12 February 2013 "I guess it's up to an uninvolved editor to close the RfC". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 18#RfC on Glass is a liquid misconception (initiated 6 January 2013 )? The opening poster wrote: "Recently, the repeated claims that glas is a 'highly-viscous liquid' have been inserted in the article. Is this claim justified, per a consensus of the sources cited in the article and the discussion above?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cloud computing#RfC: Limitations on list of cloud services (initiated 18 January 2013)? The questions posed were: "Is there value in listing every reliably sourced cloud service in the introduction on this page? If so, should we require sources for new additions?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cannabis (drug)#Safety section: coming to a resolution (initiated 4 February 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
We have this section tagged, and still the unresolved RfC about what good science says regarding cannabis and its effects on the heart remains. Can we bring this to a closure?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at User talk:Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant)#RFC:Article Notability (initiated 22 February 2013)? The question posed was: "Is tau notable enough for an article in mainspace under any name? If yes, a second RFC will determine the name to be used." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nobel Prize controversies#RfC: Should the 2000 Chemistry section be removed? (initiated 5 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Norwegian Scientific Index#RFC: inclusion of long lists of journal and publisher names (initiated 7 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tornado preparedness#Merger (initiated 7 February 2013)? The discussion is about the merging of tornado drill into tornado preparedness. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#RFC: Is it necessary to mention if reviews were mixed, positive, etc. in the opening of the Critical response? (initiated 4 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marvel Studios#RfC: Is Disney's ownership relevant? (initiated 2 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sanjuro#Sequel to Yojimbo; see the subsection Talk:Sanjuro#RFC (initiated 6 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kyuss#Alternative metal (initiated 7 January 2013)? There is disagreement over whether the band Kyuss should be classified as an alternative metal. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joseph Kony#Request for comment (initiated 5 February 2013)? The question posed was: "Is it appropriate to use this source "Invisible Children's "Kony 2012" viral video stirs emotion and controversy". CBS News. 8 March 2012. to describe the film Kony 2012 as " controversial" in Wikipedia's voice in this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mario Kart#Request For Comment (initiated 6 February 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
i am requesting comments of whether the Mario Kart article's Characters section should keep the all-inclusive but very large table it currently has, or use a proposed streamlined version separated in three sections: recurrent characters (who appear in all games, except for two characters absent from the Super game and one of these unconfirmed to appear in Arcade GP DX), console-only characters (only found in some, but not all, console games) and arcade-only characters.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Yo, Blair#Request for Comment: "Yeah, Blair" or "Yo, Blair" (initiated 6 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Derby sex gang#RFC on WP:BLP policy (initiated 20 January 2013)? The question posed was: "Do you support describing all nine people convicted as part of the sex gang?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at:
- Talk:Northern Ireland#RfC: Should the ccTLD field in this 'Infobox Country' be shown at all when it describes a part of a state; if so what should it contain. (initiated 22 January 2013)
- Talk:Northern Ireland#Demonym (initiated 22 February 2013)
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory#Proposal to integrate the secondary material collected by Location into the current article (initiated 22 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)\\
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian civil war#RfC: Third row for Kurdish forces (initiated 7 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nuclear option#RfC: How should the term "nuclear option" be defined in the lede? (initiated 13 February 2013 (UTC))? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States National Health Care Act#Does "single payer" refer to this bill? (see Talk:United States National Health Care Act#RFC on Opinion polling section; initiated 20 February 2013). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Swiss Guard#Split (initiated 19 December 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "I believe that the content on the Pontifical Swiss Guard deserves to be a separate article." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:La Luz del Mundo#RfC: Is Jorge Erdely Graham a reliable source? (initiated 19 January 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Physical determinism#RfC on two usages of 'physical determinism' (initiated 8 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Internet chess servers/Archive 1#RfC to resolve whether Chess.com may be included in article list (initiated 22 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Will.i.am#Correction of naming error (initiated 25 September 2012)? Please also consider the related discussion Talk:Will.i.am#How did we get to this point? (middle name situation) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Moved from AN. Jafeluv (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could close and summarise the discussion at WT:DYK#Proposed minor wording change to Gibraltarpedia restrictions. Prioryman (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- This has ongoing discussion. Move to premature requests? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you to closers
Thank you, Laurascudder (talk · contribs), Vanisaac (talk · contribs), Salvidrim (talk · contribs), Drmies (talk · contribs), Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs), Trevj (talk · contribs), Philosopher (talk · contribs), Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), Plastikspork (talk · contribs), Joe Decker (talk · contribs), DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), Hahc21 (talk · contribs), BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs), Jenks24 (talk · contribs), MSGJ (talk · contribs), Black Kite (talk · contribs), Geni (talk · contribs), Fayenatic london (talk · contribs), Salix (talk · contribs), Ruslik0 (talk · contribs), Mike Selinker (talk · contribs), and Mark Arsten (talk · contribs). I am very grateful to you for taking the time to review the close requests and close the discussions. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 11#Spouse, partner, and children support (initiated 26 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Associated acts (initiated 27 January 2013)? The discussion is about the removal of the "Associated acts" parameter. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:COI editnotice#Request for Comment (initiated 5 February 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
There are two issues that appear to need more discussion:
1. Should this be an edit-notice for company articles or a Talk page template?2. Should it be added to all company articles or just those that show problematic COI behavior?
3. Amendment: Should it be added to the Talk page AND as an editnotice?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:French novels#RfC: French novels categorized as French-language novels (initiated 3 February 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Portal talk:Judaism#Request for Comment (initiated 17 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bittergrey (initiated 28 July 2012)?
After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apostle12 (initiated 21 December 2012)?
After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bluerim (initiated 29 November 2012)? The discussion was enclosed in archive templates but was not summarized.
After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The consensus has already reached. --George Ho (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done Closed by HelenOnline. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This RM about moving Atlanta neighborhoods to comma disambiguation, rather than parenthetical, seems to have narrow support. Discussion has been complicated by a few of the neighborhoods having other issues involved. Either way, the RM has run for over a month, and it's been almost a week since anyone commented there. I think it's time for a close. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Closed by Miniapolis. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
We would appreciate it if someone could please make a decision about this merger.Crtew (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done Closed by Crtew. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Last comment was c. one week ago, and was a question on whether the discussion should be closed. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons
A two part discussion on flag use in sports related articles found here and here. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not done These are old, long discussions, not RfCs. No obvious way to close or need to do so. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been dormant for over a month. Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus in the discussion? StAnselm (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- CLosed by JzG. Chutznik (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Discussion started more than a month ago with no contributions for over two weeks. I'm involved, but someone should put it out of its misery. Favonian (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done Closed by Salvidrim. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#RfC: Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918? (initiated 20 March 2013)? Please see also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#Closure, where an editor said he asked at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Without noticing this section, I posted a comment below (at 08:53, 23 March 2013) which I now fold into this section: "Could an uninvolved administrator close this RFC? It's more than a month old. It's also—fair warning—really long." I see that an admin has now review the RFC. Thanks! -sche (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Closed by Ymblanter. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone assess the discussion and make an appropriate closing decision? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done -- Dianna (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#User G-Zay and BLP concerns? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done Closed by King of Hearts. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons
A two part discussion on flag use in sports related articles found here and here. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not done These are old, long discussions, not RfCs. No obvious way to close or need to do so. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please close this discussion — it has been running for a month and is completely deadlocked with no chance of consensus. Prioryman (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done Closed as no consensus, defaulting to oppose. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 15:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Can this discussion be closed in light of the closure of related discussion at Template_talk:History_of_the_Turkic_peoples_pre-14th_century#Requested_move? Thanks. Cavann (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This was recently archived to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 222. I've restored it because the discussion wasn't closed. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like no consensus to me. Maybe I'll just close it myself, despite being involved! -- Trevj (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#RfC_on_other_Comments_Section
Issues of WP:SYN and WP:OR have been highly controversial in this article. I am requesting closure for that reason, even though I think consensus is rather clear.Casprings (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done —Darkwind (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
There has been a move discussion for nearly a month now to move dot the i to Dot the I. Can someone have a look and determine whether it’s possible to take action? To summarize the arguments: Some want it moved because most sources have it capitalized, and because of Wikipedia’s naming conventions. Some want it to stay as is because a few sources have it in lowercase, and because only the lowercase “i” has a dot. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Already done at RM this morning. —Darkwind (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Can this AfD be speedy closed? I have withdrawn the (bad) nomination. — Brianhe (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done by FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs). Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone speedy-close this obviously absurd nomination? Thanks--A bit iffy (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
AfD has been open for 10 days. Can someone assess the consensus and close this nomination? Many thanks— Josophie (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done --BDD (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Suicide_of_Kelly_Yeomans#Requested_move_2_.28second_request.29 Multiple articles
This is a protracted and sometimes heated discussion regarding the renaming of multiple articles in a sensitive area. An administrator wholly uninvolved with articles on suicides, with excellent experience of article naming conventions and notability of topics is required, together with the genuine ability to see and understand both sides of the discussion and present a closing rationale that shows that the discussion has been taken into account is required. Imperfect closure is likely to lead to a request for a review by anyone involved in the discussion. Because the area is sensitive, a genuinely sensitive rationale is required to seek to ensure that further distress to those involved with the article topic (off Wikipedia) is minimised.
There are many subsections to the discussion, which is scheduled to close today. Entrenched views exist, and the discussion has become circular, with the same arguments being propounded by the same editors over and over again, but in subtly different flavours. The reason for asking for prompt closure is to try to get editors back to creating an encyclopaedia, not defending a position on naming. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't an easy request to close. It requires an admin with a detailed analytical approach, and requires the application of current policies in addition to interpretation of the discussion and arguments made for and against. A small and growing set of voices are asking for closure on the talk page itself. I commend this to your attention. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done This request has been handled. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
This RM is supported by everyone except one user who was edit-warring with the nominator (me), and they have since been blocked. No need to keep it open any longer. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done --BDD (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Opened April 22, never relisted, a bunch of comments, requesting and admin to close. Cavarrone (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done by Beeblebrox. --BDD (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced admininstrator assess the consensus and close as resolved or abandoned the RfC at Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes. This may be a difficult closure due to the editor issues involved and advice regarding the behavior of the two main editors, User:Wayne and User:Phoenix and Winslow, would be appreciated.
This RfC has been somewhat compromised by a supporting editor canvassing a large number of editors and asking them to vote in Support. This editor was warned not to canvass [4][5][6] but continued, justifying it as a request to vote per WP:FRS with no knowledge on his part as to how they would vote. This editor has also posted a competing RfC with the question reframed to encourage a "support" vote.[7] Three editors (two supporters and one who voted to abandon) want the RfC abandoned due to the above issues rather than have it closed as resolved. However, despite these problems only two of the canvassed editors voted (both in support) which has not significantly impacted on the survey result which is currently seven votes for oppose, three votes for support and one vote for abandon with no further votes made in the last seven days. Closure will require significant patience on the part of the closing admin as the discussion currently runs to 25 pages. Wayne (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by User:Dpmuk. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
This has developed into a long and sometimes heated discussion about Wikipedia's non-free content policy and whether a non-free image should be used to illustrate an art gallery's collection. Whilst several of the contributors are experienced editors, the positions seem to be entrenched. The discussion's outcome will have ramifications on other articles about visual arts. An uninvolved admin's input may help to resolve the discussion.
If this isn't the best way forward at this stage, could someone suggest an alternative? Sionk (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not done. Premature, there is ongoing discussion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Relisted (DRV) AFD has been open for 10 days. Anyone feel like interpreting a consensus? Stalwart111 22:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted (by someone else). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD (initiated 26 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- That link has been archived, is it now too late to close it? See also:
- I second this request for a closing. Are the technical people still working on this? This is an ongoing point of contention at AfD, because AfD gets discussions for which there is no theoretical case for deletion. It would help for someone to close this discussion, or at least summarize the opinion and clarify the current technical status of implementation. Unscintillating (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. You'll have to ask the "technical people" if they are still working on it. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Would an administrator or an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia Talk:Administrators#Proposal for discussion regarding admin action by other admins who disagree (initiated early January 2013)? Thanks,Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- At WP:RFAR. Not needed anymore. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
now open for over a month (since March 16 including the relisting). Frietjes (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Relist or disposition - This TfD has now been relisted once for more than one week, and has been open since March 16th. The TfD should be relisted or dispositioned accordingly. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Changed the title to reflect the correct date. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted 1 May (by someone else). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has had plenty of participation with well over a week of listing. I haven't directly participated in the discussion but feel too WP:INVOLVED in the underlying issue to be the best choice for a closer. --BDD (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Deleted (by someone else). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if an uninvolved editor would close this informal RfC (opened 23 March) regarding whether Will Beback's indefinite ban should be lifted. The arbitration committee imposed the ban in February 2012, and last month rejected Will's appeal against it. The issue may proceed to a formal request to the committee, so it would be helpful to have a summary of the RfC's consensus. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I read part of the page with a thought toward closing it, but what's the point? The discussion has already moved on to [8] so closing the RFC in the userspace page will not help. Chutznik (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, there might be a formal approach to the arbcom, so it would help if someone completely uninvolved in past disputes with Will, BASC, or any of the individual arbs, would close and sum up the RfC. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Highly controversial and contentious article, with a more controversial section. RFC is very confusing, with people !voting for multiple proposals which change over time, and interwoven with content debates and discussion. Expect to be flamed no matter what your decision. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This RM has run for over a week, and consensus is rather clear. An editor has called for a close, and I'd be happy to do it had I not participated in the discussion myself. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached for a merge to Survivor: Caramoan, however as the original proposer I am reluctant to execute the merge without third-party assessment. - Katanin (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Contested - User:MouthlessBobcat has been reverting my redirect of the article, and reverted the closure. Clearly he is contesting the closure. I am requesting that an administrator review this closure. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've blocked MouthlessBobcat for 24 hours for personal attacks. I was going to comment on Nathan Johnson's closure as well, but after the block I think it is probably best another admin does it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Contested - User:MouthlessBobcat has been reverting my redirect of the article, and reverted the closure. Clearly he is contesting the closure. I am requesting that an administrator review this closure. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Could I get someone uninvolved to close this? Fair warning, it is long, contentious, technical, and probably not clear-cut. Thanks in advance! Tazerdadog (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I had looked at it, but I lack the technical expertise to properly close this. Someone familiar with the topic shouldn't have too great a difficulty sifting through it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- This was removed as closed but the (non-admin) closure is being disputed, while the article, Tau (2π), is being edit warred over. I think it needs looking at again by an administrator.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Closures cannot be overturned simply because the closer in not an admin. This is not the correct venue for a review. See above and this RfC. (Though I do agree with that the close was more a supervote than a summary.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- The editor who claimed to close this was warned of a block twice in the past 8 days. This particular RfC is an open-and-shut "no consensus reached". Tkuvho (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am going to have to disagree that this is an open and shut case. In any event, the course of action for a no consensus reached is somewhat unclear as pointed out in the original closure. I think it would be beneficial for someone to take a second look, but I do not know the proper venue. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Closures cannot be overturned simply because the closer in not an admin. This is not the correct venue for a review. See above and this RfC. (Though I do agree with that the close was more a supervote than a summary.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have protected Tau (2π) for 24 hours because of the edit warring. I would note that I commented on the underlying debate months ago, in part to propose a compromise, but the edit warring, involving multiple parties on both sides was bad enough that I felt a short time out was an appropriate action. Perhaps another admin could review what I have done and consider a longer protection until a consensus is reached (beginning with the appropriate forum). --agr (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, that was quite appropriate.Tazerdadog (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I read through the RFC and the close, and it looks pretty sensible to me. Attacking the closer is not a good way to try to get a different outcome. Let the process go forward, and let those who don't like it take to AfD again if they wish. Dicklyon (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dennis (an uninvolved admin) agrees that it was a supervote. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- You could say I reverted it as an experienced editor, as it wasn't an admin function. I wasn't the only one that considered it a supervote, but I was completely uninvolved (and sufficiently too ignorant of the subject matter to close) but I know a bad close when I see one. Closing doesn't need an admin, but it does need an experienced closer who is uninvolved and capable of dealing with complex cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but I was just giving your comment some extra gravitas, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- You could say I reverted it as an experienced editor, as it wasn't an admin function. I wasn't the only one that considered it a supervote, but I was completely uninvolved (and sufficiently too ignorant of the subject matter to close) but I know a bad close when I see one. Closing doesn't need an admin, but it does need an experienced closer who is uninvolved and capable of dealing with complex cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dennis (an uninvolved admin) agrees that it was a supervote. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I took a shot... -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Tkuvho (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your close is not a supervote and is consistent with policy, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't read the RfC so can't comment on the merits, but the close appears to be proper and within expected norms to me as well. This was no small task, so I think I can safely say that we all appreciate you undertaking this, Nathan. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nathan Johnson, It appears that the close was just another "I don't like it" in that it is not taking into account "Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion."WP:IDL Also "[k]eep in mind that articles can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected". Your close does not identify or correct what would be needed to make it"WP:JUSTA "moved to mainspace" after all of the new sources since the the two prior discussions:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tau (mathematics), result: keep (2011)
- http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Tau_(2%CF%80)/Archive_3#Request_for_comment , result: merge to Pi (2012).
- The second of discussions which seems to have been done as to block future edits from existing by removing all relevant pertinent information related to tau in the 2011 keep to near nothing currently, and now removing the source information of a subsection as to remove it later (see http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Pi&diff=553995984&oldid=553610571 ) and edit warring of Tau (2π). It also seems that if the same justification is applied to this 2012 merger with the "no consensus" result the result would be "keep" and not merge even more so with the current fringe sources list for the article.
- It seem like we have a case of unattainable resolution because there is no talk on your part as to how this fringe article can in the manner of justifying its need to exist. "Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion."WP:USEFUL And there is a high need for clear and reasonable solutions to allow this article to "moved to mainspace". Just look at the information that is being "edit war" about (see http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Tau_%282%CF%80%29&diff=553906633&oldid=543535355 ), and realize that it clearly does not belong in an article with pi or a subsection of the article of pi, but does belong in an mainspace fringe article.
- I hope that you modify your comments as to show some clear solutions as to allow the article to exist. John W. Nicholson (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please see WP:STICK. Tkuvho (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- @John W. Nicholson: You're looking for WP:N, which was linked several times in the close (in various forms). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree that at this point I have to agree that WP:STICK is in order. While I disagree with the closer's assessment, that is how it works on Wikipedia, and we are all on the wrong side of consensus occasionally. If the reason not to create the article had been on almost anything but notability, then you would have an excellent point. However, the best article in the world can't fix notability. The only thing that should be done here is to move on. Improve other areas of the encyclopedia. Tau should not be brought up again for at least 12-18 months, and only then if there is significantly better sourcing. This should be closed now, and left alone. It has become too much of a dramafest already. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your close is not a supervote and is consistent with policy, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that my comments are WP:STICK when new sources have been added and continue to be added. At some point there needs to have a change and allow the article to exist. I am asking for some insight and stating what this point is, who, what and how much is needed, with the close as it pertains to this article. Sorry if I am not clear. If the requirement is to raise Euler from the dead I see that we have issues that require someone else to work on this article. If it is some level that is reasonable that can be worked upon, or allow time to act so be it. But, this is a fringe article and there is a lower level of the need of notability, I just don't know what it is for this article and request that it be stated. No, it is not a dead horse, but maybe the rebirth of a dead human and his peers. As Joseph Lindenberg stated "They may insist Euler actually write something about it that will pass peer review. Ehhh... better bring two shovels. All of Euler's peers are dead too" John W. Nicholson (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Funny you should bring that up. I just recently found that Euler did publish a paper where he made π = Circumference/radius instead of π = Circumference/diameter. See section XI of An Essay Explaining the Properties of Air. OK, sorry to interrupt. You guys can go back to discussing desecrating dead horses and dead mathematicians now. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I started an CFD for Category:Male film directors on 22 March 2013. link. It is still open though I believe there is a clear consensus. The new CFD by Timrollpickering is one of many that he has begun that applies to all currently existing men/women male/female categories. His new CFD does not conflict with my original CFD. Thank you. - Fantr (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done by someone else. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Would some admin please assess and close this discussion? I think the consensus is pretty clear for the requested page moves. Thanks. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Now what happens? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- While I was sleeping, an admin took care of the page moves. That should take care of everything. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Now what happens? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
As it seems, the consensus has already reached. --George Ho (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Protracted and sometimes heated debate which the initiator has already decided, pre-closure, to 'take to the next level'. This requires prompt and careful closure. The challenge is that it is hard to be uninvolved in the language and vocabulary conventions around a suicide. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- There really is a need to close this now. Please visit it and close it. There is already a statement form a user that it will be 'elevated to the next level' if they do not like the closure, so we may as well get on with it and see what they do or do not do. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Very many thanks. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It is suggested I look for closure for discussion "Artist who play here". Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
This RfC has received a decent amount of input, and I think the consensus is now fairly clear. I think it's about time to lay this one to rest, and I would appreciate an uninvolved editor coming in to close the discussion. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now done. Cheers, LindsayHello 09:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
As this RfC was the result of a months-long controversy affecting multiple editors over a wide range of articles, I would appreciate it if we could get a neutral/uninvolved admin to summarize and close it. Thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done, Closed by Shi on May 15. History2007 (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
This RFC/U was opened two months ago but apart from the certifiers and subject of the RFC/U there has been little response from uninvolved editors. Would an admin have a look over it? Blackmane (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The subject of the AfD was moved and the redirect was deleted. The subject of the AfD is now the move target - 2,300,675. I think the AfD can be snow-closed but I'm concerned a non-admin will see the redlink and good-faith NAC it without realising that 2,300,675 will still need to be deleted. Anyone want to bury this potential mistake-magnet? Cheers, Stalwart111 02:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done, with thanks to Mike Rosoft for his efforts. Stalwart111 08:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
There was agreement here that we will ask an uninvolved editor to simply close the two merge proposals. Closure will hence be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done soft close. Mkdwtalk 23:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I am requesting a neutral administrator to assess the consensus at Talk:List of Dragonlance characters#Caramon as to whether or not the article Caramon Majere can be kept as a stand-alone article. BOZ (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note that different users have commented on Caramon Majere during the same period in a more general discussion: [9], [10], [11].Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please consult WP:FORUMSHOP as to whether a parallel discussion contributes to the consensus on another discussion. BOZ (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- And WP:FORUMSHOP states that "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question", which is exactly the case here. It happened that some users there saw fit to comment directly about Caramon Majere, I see no reason why their opinion should be ignored. But I'll rephrase my earlier comment to remove any doubt as to the validity of the comments I brought up.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please consult WP:FORUMSHOP as to whether a parallel discussion contributes to the consensus on another discussion. BOZ (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This proposal has been listed in both RfC and CENT and has recieved a near-unanimous support but a modest turnout. For the past 2 weeks, there has been no further activity on it. I request an uninvolved admin to look into it, and close it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by me with recommendations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
This RFC was on the splitting and re-creation of the Dragonball Z article. The discussion originally was on the Talk:Dragon Ball page, where after policy concerns were cited the debate died. Additional Supports are at Talk:Dragon Ball Z, which were made from the confusing way the in-article link to discuss the RFC was done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not done. Premature. Discussion on-going. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This RFC is a little complex. The issue was whether the Anime and Manga Manual of Style can impose rules for article splits. The previous discussions listed at the RFC are irrelevant given arguments raised there, opting for the removal of the highlighted section as instruction creep and in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. No activity in the last 5 days at the pump. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not done. Consensus seems exceptionally clear that the proposal was WP:CREEPY. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. The RFC was to remove that piece, not to insert it. I'll bring it to your talk page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- When consensus is obvious, there is usually not a reason for a formal closure. However, I have now closed this discussion with a summary. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. The RFC was to remove that piece, not to insert it. I'll bring it to your talk page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Right now the discussion has reached either a consensus or a deadlock, especially after two separate consensuses. --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a request for official closure of this discussion. No consensus was achieved that the policy applies to to the {{Philosophy reference resources}} template. We can all see that directly, since the people who have the agenda against it have seen fit to amend the policy language to specifically target the template without any discussion on any proposal to amend the policy. Greg Bard (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now it seems that my revert of the questionable amendment has been reverted. Could someone intervene in some way so that we hold some standard of legitimate decision making here, please? Greg Bard (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a request for a closure of the discussion of the G13 CSD criteria discussion. The decision to create a CSD criterion for stale AfC drafts was handled in a previous RfC, but there are six outstanding questions about the specifics, most of which have a fairly clear consensus: 1) How long an AfC draft is abandoned before becoming eligible. 2) Whether it applies to all AfC drafts or only a subset. 3) Whether the quality of the draft should effect eligibility. 4) Whether it applies in all namespaces. 5) Whether tagging and deletion tasks should be bot-automated. 6) Whether it applies to articles in the WP:Article Incubator. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 06:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This AfD is running from 11 May without any relisting and with a good number of votes/comments, requesting an admin to assess consensus and close the discussion. Cavarrone (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not done AFD has been relisted, should be closed on the 27th. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
This user page has a description of and a flow chart for a proposed addition to the Afc process. The accompanying talk page has discussion on the merits of the proposal. The flow chart has been modified to take into account some of the points raised in the discussion. Requesting an admin to assess consensus and close the discussion. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Since the proposal to issue a topic ban on myself was initiated, I have not been able to edit due to the hostile and abusive environment created by the proposal. Please don't tell me it wasn't. I had originally approached the group in good faith with a complaint against someone else. This isn't a game here. I reported an abusive environment and people continued to harass me, and were further emboldened by this proposal. It is pretty clear that this is a very flawed, if not completely broken system of dealing with sanctions. I lost a lot of respect for Wikipedia, in general, because of it. I maintained my innocence from the very beginning, and was roundly harassed for doing so. Please close this discussion so that I can have some closure, and feel that I can continue editing without the threat of completely unjustified sanctions. I think that the fact that this wasn't officially closed is just another example of how the process of issuing sanctions is not taken seriously at all, and results in a jailyard, kindergarten, or kangaroo-court type of situation. Neither proposal achieved a consensus. Please close them as such. Greg Bard (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not done. If either of the proposals had reached a consensus, they would have been noted as such when the sanctions were imposed. They were archived without action being taken, which means there was no consensus. We don't close and summarize every discussion that takes place on Wikipedia. If we needed to do so, nothing would get done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/The Flashman Papers/archive1 and Talk:The Flashman Papers
I think there is a consensus (with one dissentient voice) to close the discussions on these two pages. Admin consideration would be greatly appreciated. – Tim riley (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- As a director for the FL process, I closed the FLRC as consensus seemed clear. I'm not an admin, but the close doesn't seem controversial to me so I went ahead with it. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I request that this RFC be closed. The RFC started 30 March and involves three points. Point 1: There is no consensus to remove the honorific "Pope" from the lead sentence. A related discussion at WT:NCCL#Pope_as_part_of_the_name was closed recently with concensus "against changing the naming convention for articles about Roman Catholic popes, and also specifically against applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes." Point 2: There is consensus (no opposition) to use the construction "Pope {name} was the head of the Catholic Church from ..." to address the issue of redundancy. Point 3: There is consensus that the English name (or name) field should omit the honorific "Pope". Bede735 (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by User:Bede735. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Rape and pregnancy controversies
- Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012/Archive_1#Background
- Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections.2C_2012_Background_Section
Both of these conversations deal with the same issue. They seem to be at consensus to me. I would ask that an uninvolved admin take a look at it, and close each discussion with a consensus.Casprings (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Both issues have been referred to by independent editors, though not on the noticeboards, as being strange inclusions. The issue as stated in the question is different from the issues brought up; Casprings is using perceived /mis-perceived consensus to threaten other editors who independently bring up the same issues Arzel has. Indeterminate close, as has already happened, and referral back to the Talk page, where discussion SHOULD have been is the appropriate response.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not done. Both threads have died down and been archived. If this issue is still in dispute, I would suggest starting a WP:RFC. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This debate has gone on far too long on replacing an awful article title with a good one. There is strong and well reasoned support for the proposal and all alternate proposals have strong opposition. Could someone please make the move (title moves are restricted to Admins) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)- Ack. Premature. Re-opened. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can someone please review this move proposal? It seems to have very clear consensus. It was opened 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC). There are currerntly five move proposals on the table and this is the original one. The other four, as I think you'll clearly see, are dead in the water and stand no chance. The other four are:
- Alternative proposal
- Alternative proposal 2
- Alternative proposal 3
- Alternative proposal 4
- Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is unanimous consent that the current article title is terrible. Therefore, I hope the current proposals will be reviewed and closed as soon as possible. Tensions are very high, so I strongly believe that these closes should be done by an administrator. Although a number of the proposals have been worthy of being snow-closed for awhile, we still need a final decision on a title so we can all move on. Thank you. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to why no one has reviewed and closed the four, current move requests: [12][13][14][15] (There were previous ones, but they were closed.) The current discussions started 14 days ago and I see no new comments in the past 3-4 days. The last three have overwhelming consensus opposing them, so someone just needs to take a good look at the first one of the four, and then close all four of them. Every editor agrees that the current title needs changed, so I hope an admin will review these four proposals and make a decision as soon as possible. It's time to get rid of the current, outdated title, which says the three are "missing" when in fact they were found two weeks ago. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would have closed it and moved it but the page is move protected so I can't. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Yunshui 雲水 09:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion began exactly three weeks ago and was added to the RfC a day later. After a week or so of discussion, it has since been quiet and there seems to have been no requested comments from other editors. The context of the issue serves to show that the discussion needs to be closed formally with a definitive result — it can't be left unresolved like it was pre-discussion. A majority of the original editors involved supported Solution A as the accepted consensus, however, I'll leave that decision up to the administrator. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Closed as no consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor is needed to sum up consensus at Talk:BP#RfC: Should the article contain the Deepwater Horizon oil spill series navigation template?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there a consensus already? If not, can you add the {{rfc|media}} tag at top of OP, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 18:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I nominated this article for deletion when it was a poorly formatted list of cities. It has been much improved, and it appears that there is consensus to keep it. I request that it be closed without waiting for the seven-day period. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
ResolvedThis discussion needs to be formally closed. If no single option has a majority, please determine the top 2 options so we can present a third round.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- It would be impossible to close that in any meaningful way without 80% of users commenting being pissed with the result. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved Admin (its at a 2nd AFD due to a disputed snow NAC, so admin only please) review and close this. Including the the first AFD it has been discussed since the 19th May, the current AFD open since the 24th May. Its also starting to attract trolling. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Seconded. The discussion has been going off the rails for a couple of days now. Please end it. - MrX 15:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thirded. I came here to request that this be closed, only to find that the request was made. Anything sensible to be said was said days ago.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- The way I see it:
switch(result)
{
case "keep":
goto DRV;
break;
case "delete":
goto DRV;
break;
case "no consensus":
goto DRV;
break;
}
- Why don't we just skip the close and go straight to DRV? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- DRV shouldn't be wasted on weak NAC closes, and would likely send it back to XfD for a closer who can well summarise the facts of the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- In that case I propose that we skip the whole 3rd AfD and move directly to the 4th, while, for the sake of efficiency, having a DRV on the propriety of having skipped the 3rd AfD. Let's also have an MfD for this request for closure while we're at it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll prepare the DRV for the MfD while we're waiting. — Scott • talk 15:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- After reading the entire discussion, previous AfD, and DRV, I think it's pretty clearly a keep, but I ain't touching it with a 10-meter pole. (And not because I'm not an admin.) Short summary: one of the sources is clearly reliable, those voting keep think that the cumulative effect of the other sources (but especially one) is enough to satisfy the GNG. Those wishing to delete argue that the sourcing of the other sources does not meet the requirement of significant coverage. Many votes of ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT can be ignored. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- A reasonable summary, although valid arguments were also made on the basis of WP:WEB rather than the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- WP:N has one basic requirement, that a topic be 'worthy of notice', and there are multiple pathways to define wp:notability. Even in our core policy of WP:V, personal editorial opinions have weight within the bounds of the policy and within reason. IMO, a clear consensus existed, both in AfD1 and in the DRV, that the topic was "worthy of notice". No reasonable person disputes that a WP:V WP:RS article, even if only one sentence in length, can be written about the topic, at which point discussion about the sources ends. WP:N is but a guideline. Spartaz reports in the DRV closing that there was a community need to discuss sources ("The sourcing...requires discussion..."), and we don't know if this is supposed to be a WP:GNG viewpoint or a WP:IAR. If it is a WP:GNG viewpoint, it disregards the rest of WP:N. The need required that he personally take charge of the DRV discussion, speedy close it, present evidence that he alone provides, inform each of the 18 editors that they had missed an important point ("The point that everyone seems to have missed..."), take down a dozen keep !votes at AfD1, improperly close AfD1, and reopen an AfD (AfD2) that was not being discussed at the DRV. AfD2 had been properly closed by an administrator. Unscintillating (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I suspect that there remains a possibility that an admin will discover that there is now a community consensus to merge Wikipediocracy. However, AfD merge closes are not binding on the community, so a talk page discussion to restore the article could quickly establish a consensus. Unscintillating (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- A reasonable summary, although valid arguments were also made on the basis of WP:WEB rather than the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done The discussion is closed, thank you all for your opinions. J04n(talk page) 09:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
As an involved editor I don't think I'm allowed to close this, but there's been no comment on it since February. Could someone do so and we can then remove the templates from Lama (disambiguation) and Lama (name). I hope this is the right place to ask for a closure: first time I've done so. PamD 09:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
ResolvedThis was closed recently by the bot after being open for a month. It would be appreciated if an uninvolved editor could sum up consensus. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Two users edit conflicted while closing this thread, so it'd be nice if one more user would look at this. Or offer advice on how to proceed. Or give me ice cream. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I know it's annoying to have someone else close a discussion while one is still writing a closing statement, but shit happens and you just have to take it on the chin and accept that somebody else has closed. If you are going to take a long time to review and perform the close you can use {{Closing}}. There is also {{AfDh}} and {{AfDb}}, but are specific to deletion debates. It is inappropriate for anyone to add anything to a debate once it has been closed. If you still wish to post your comments, you should post them outside the closed thread. Or you can take some other action such as challenging the close. A second close causes enormous confusion - how are editors now supposed to know what the consensus was assessed to be? Not only did you make this error, but you then took the wholly inappropriate action of reverting FormerIP when he struck your second close. I would strongly advise you to self-revert that immediately, or else delete your close altogether. SpinningSpark 17:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed two comments from this section, per RPA. Spinningspark has struck the second close, [16], so this seems to be resolved. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at Talk:The Rite of Spring#Infobox, where it is clear that there is no consensus for change. On a purely proactical level, there is a section of the talk thread (Talk:The Rite of Spring#Improving Content ...) which is still active and does not relate directly to the infobox argument, or at least contains a discussion which has moved past the infobox and deals only with the content of the article. I suspect this should be left open for further discussion. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Objection A number of editors, on both sides of the discussion, have posted in the last 12 hours; the discussion is not over and this is an attempt by an involved editor to stifle debate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is one principal, strongly committed, dissentient voice from the consensus, and I see no prospect of a change to the consensus. After more than 8,500 words on this matter I think the discussion on adding an info-box has run its course, and perpetuation is verging on the vexatious. Tim riley (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- ...two involved editors attempting to stifle debate. I'm not Gerda, BTW.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Andy can rest assured that he is in no danger of being confused for the beloved Gerda; she is much cherished and respected by contributors to WP music articles, and when she disagrees with others she does it with grace and concision. Tim riley (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- ...two involved editors attempting to stifle debate. I'm not Gerda, BTW.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is one principal, strongly committed, dissentient voice from the consensus, and I see no prospect of a change to the consensus. After more than 8,500 words on this matter I think the discussion on adding an info-box has run its course, and perpetuation is verging on the vexatious. Tim riley (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not done. Thread opened yesterday. If consensus is already so clear-cut, it doesn't require formal closure. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- The problem, Nathan, is that there are two deeply entrenched views, neither of which is going to give way. Because there is no consensus to change, the status quo will remain. All that will happen is that positions will become more deeply entrenched than they were previously and tempers will become more frayed, leading to further snide accusations or sub-standard behavior. Sigh.... it'll just drag on pointlessly for another 10,000 words or so and become increasingly tiresome, divisive and polarising. Closure is probably the least painful pathway for all, despite the trite accusations of censorship and "stifling debate". - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- One minor point, Nathan: the thread was opened on 30 May, not yesterday. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Called to my attention, makes me smile. My point of view: an infobox was suggested, was improved, so was the template, suggestions to improve the article came up, nothing wrong with that, right? - The infobox will not be admitted to the article anytime soon, so what? - It took a few months until I was "converted" from being against infoxes to seeing that they are good for accessibility. The infobox has been described as disfiguring the article. That's how you can look at a ramp for the disabled disfiguring a building. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- One minor point, Nathan: the thread was opened on 30 May, not yesterday. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- The problem, Nathan, is that there are two deeply entrenched views, neither of which is going to give way. Because there is no consensus to change, the status quo will remain. All that will happen is that positions will become more deeply entrenched than they were previously and tempers will become more frayed, leading to further snide accusations or sub-standard behavior. Sigh.... it'll just drag on pointlessly for another 10,000 words or so and become increasingly tiresome, divisive and polarising. Closure is probably the least painful pathway for all, despite the trite accusations of censorship and "stifling debate". - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to again request that an uninvolved admin has a look at this and brings it to a close, please. The full discussion of Talk:The Rite of Spring#Infobox has ended in a whimper, albeitwith a very strong consensus to retain the status quo, but I think an admin would be best to close this always-contentious subject. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Done SlimVirgin (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The consensus has already established. --George Ho (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done Hi George, for future reference, this is the kind of thing you can close yourself, or leave unclosed, as there was clearly no support for the proposal. It's really only when things aren't obvious, or where the issue is a major or contentious one, that a formal close is needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Request an uninvolved admin to close the RfC at Talk:Eugene Plotkin#RfC page move: "Pajčin & Plotkin insider trading scheme". After 30 days, broad consensus was to move the page and a majority of editors agreed on Reebok Insider Trading Case as the appropriate new title, but there was some impassioned dissent from one editor. An objective pair of eyes would be greatly appreciated to summarize the consensus view and make the move. Factchecker25 (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's a history of sock puppets at the page and a current request to check for sock puppets, so I'd think it best to wait. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Let me contextualize this comment. The so-called "history of sock puppets" on the page occurred in early 2012 and was promptly dealt with. It has no bearing on the present issue. I should also point out that Smallbones is the one editor who has been fighting against the consensus view on the page, engaging in personal attacks and edit warring. His request for a sock puppet investigation (which has not been endorsed) has simply been the latest ploy in a concerted effort to battle consensus. He was referred to ANI earlier at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive795#Smallbones_and_Eugene_Plotkin Once again, I would like to request that an uninvolved editor look at the RfC on the talk page of the article, summarize the consensus view, and close the RfC. Factchecker25 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Done --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Formal close needed on how to properly mark this page. The result is not clear cut so I don't think it can be closed by any of the discussion participants. SpinningSpark 11:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Done by --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This has been closed by the bot after 30 days, and now an uninvolved editor is needed to sum up consensus. I've listed people's responses in a note for the closing editor, in case it's helpful. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done Closed by Nathan Johnson. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin please close this merger discussion. My analysis is:
- The proposal to include International System of Units in the three-way merger was rejected.
- There was no consensus in respect of merging SI base unit and SI derived unit into a single article.
Martinvl (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Done by --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Looking for an uninvolved admin to close this discussion. Been a very debate article with many debated issues. Would help greatly if an admin closed this RFC. The RFC is now expired. Casprings (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please note the very biased phrasing of the RfC. Arzel (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Could you clarify your close a bit? I read it as stating the 2008 data should not be included. However, two other editors are suggesting the consensus is to not include either the 2012 or 2008 data.Casprings (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also done. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved admin please close this RfC? DoctorKubla (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Done by --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Could use a final assessment and ruling on this one from an uninvolved admin. I believe everyone who had something to say has had their say. Thanks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Done by Bwilkins.
Just come across this. Looks like there fairly obviously consensus and its a week old. Oddbodz (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes there is. Can an admin please make a judgement on it? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't see an obvious consensus. I think people are confusing a MR with a RM (understandably so) - but like a deletion review, a move review is only for arguing the merits of the close and reading of consensus, not re-arguing the move itself. So while there may be a majority arguing to overturn, that doesn't mean that the consensus for the MR is that it was incorrect. Someone needs to take their time on this, it's not gonna be me as it looks rather complex.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Feels like a case of instruction creep if you ask me. Why go through such an arbitrary process if, as you pointed out, there is an obvious consensus for RM? As you said, most of the people there were arguing for RM and not MR, so why not skip the arbitrary process and just go straight to the RM? Honestly it feels like wikipedians are trying to make move review a relevant process when it really is pointless. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't create move review but it was recently created for exactly this case - to provide an alternative for constant rename discussions. If you don't like the consensus of the first discussion the proper path is not to simply rename again - this ends up wasting a lot of time. I think MR was created because people challeged findings of RMs, so it provides a different forum to review the closer's decision. Also, I didn't say there was a consensus either to rename or overturn, I said majority, which is not the same thing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- So where does that leave us? It is pretty obvious to me that this is a new noticeboard and we are trying to incorporate it into the process. I personally don't think it has much value, but I will do what I have to do to keep up with the process wikipedia wants us to use. What do we do next?
- Also, I see the value of move review for some articles that are constantly being moved back and forth, but this is the first time Deadmau5 was moved for over five years. I think some editors were too eager to make use of move review and this wasn't really the type of situation it was designed for. This was just a fluke. It never should have been moved to Deadmaus and now this arbitrary process is getting in the way of moving it back. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- It depends on the outputs of the MR. I'd suggest going back to whatever you wrote there, and re-writing it to be an account of your reading of the consensus of the previous discussions, and if you honestly think the close was wrong, then make your arguments why - not based on new information or your own personal feelings, but why, given the discussion in the RM, you find a different consensus. Tell those who support the move back to do the same. If, in spite of that, the move ends up being endorsed, your best course of action is just to not worry about it, go do something else for a while, and then come back in a year or so and see if consensus has changed. Note that you write above: "It never should have been moved" - well, that's your opinion, and an admin read the consensus differently. The MR process is not arbitrary, it was developed by experienced RM people who were trying to address exactly this issue - people being grumpy with a close and not having a standard outlet to seek resolution or have other eyes look at a close. In any case, if you don't like MR, this is not the place to dispute it - that would be at Wikipedia_talk:Move_review.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't create move review but it was recently created for exactly this case - to provide an alternative for constant rename discussions. If you don't like the consensus of the first discussion the proper path is not to simply rename again - this ends up wasting a lot of time. I think MR was created because people challeged findings of RMs, so it provides a different forum to review the closer's decision. Also, I didn't say there was a consensus either to rename or overturn, I said majority, which is not the same thing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Feels like a case of instruction creep if you ask me. Why go through such an arbitrary process if, as you pointed out, there is an obvious consensus for RM? As you said, most of the people there were arguing for RM and not MR, so why not skip the arbitrary process and just go straight to the RM? Honestly it feels like wikipedians are trying to make move review a relevant process when it really is pointless. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Done by EdJohnston
Can someone please close this completely inappropriate quasi-RFC/U started on an editor's talk page and perhaps strongly admonish the editor who started it? That editor has been accusing the other of having a conflict of interest for the better part of 6 months (having joined WP to AFD the article where the alleged COI exists). The one editor who has misguidedly commented got this for his trouble. Nothing good can come of this and it's about the fourth "forum" the editor has "shopped" in an attempt to expose the other's supposed conflict. Stalwart111 14:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Done by --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone please close three related conversations. An RFC on them is now closed and it is time for an uninvolved close so the article can move forward.
- Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#RfC_on_King_and_Bartlett_Section_of_Other_comments_Section
- Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#Roscoe_Bartlett_.2A.2F_major_BLP_violations
- Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#POV_tags_for_King_and_Bartlett
ThanksCasprings (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- This page is a mess, and the discussions themselves are a mess. It's not clear what exactly is being asked to close - many of them are not neutrally formulated as an RFC, nor are the discussions framed as RFC responses. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Two of the discussions were not an RFC. Only the one marked "RFC" was an RFC. The other two are related to the RFC I know it would be a tough close, but reading and summarizing what you think is the consensus on those sections would be helpful. At the least, it would help determine if the current non-neutral tag is justified. The page has been very controversial, so outside eyes are always good.Casprings (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's another RFC just started here: Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#RFC_on_Explanatory_note_Pregnancy_rate. Do you really think RFCs are needed with such frequency on this one page? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- It has been a controversial page, so I have found that discussion, followed by RFCs, followed by a request to close allows for neutral editors to help solve disputes. I think it has worked better than a page like the Tea Party Movement.Casprings (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't a page problem; it's an editor (Casprings) problem. Casprings has a habit of not making arguments, but of throwing procedural motions into Talk page discussion, INSTEAD of supporting positions. This isn't just RfCs, but ANI, move discussions in the middle of AfDs, etc.. It would be appreciated if, if you do believe an RfC is not neutral, that it be closed as "not neutral". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous209.6 (talk • contribs) 17 June 2013
- This was actually just an RFC and two related talk page discussions.Casprings (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's another RFC just started here: Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#RFC_on_Explanatory_note_Pregnancy_rate. Do you really think RFCs are needed with such frequency on this one page? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Two of the discussions were not an RFC. Only the one marked "RFC" was an RFC. The other two are related to the RFC I know it would be a tough close, but reading and summarizing what you think is the consensus on those sections would be helpful. At the least, it would help determine if the current non-neutral tag is justified. The page has been very controversial, so outside eyes are always good.Casprings (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- This page is a mess, and the discussions themselves are a mess. It's not clear what exactly is being asked to close - many of them are not neutrally formulated as an RFC, nor are the discussions framed as RFC responses. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Not done I've now looked at this in more detail. In my opinion, none of these discussions, as far as I can see, is structured in a way to allow a formal close. The goalposts are shifting, and new information is being added/deleted in the middle, so they are just your classic talk page arguments. I think more discussion is needed there, until you get to a point of firmly established positions A or B, and if you can't sort it, then you can bring an RFC or other editors in, and have them weigh in on options. But in looking at them, I didn't see anything that would benefit from some sort of formal close right now. User:Casprings is reminded to not start RFCs arbitrarily every time they have a minor content dispute - it is disruptive - RFC should only be used when broad community input is needed. Another path, instead of RFCs, is notification on relevant project boards and village pump to get more eyes on an article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think that is unfortunate. Some analysis of the discussion would have been useful. However, thank you for your time at looking at the discussion. Casprings (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I endorse Obiwan's comments. RfC are used with too great a frequency on that article IMO. And most discussion do not need formal closure. Please simply discuss matters with other participants on the talk page and try to arrive at a consensus. --RA (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:RM is designed to have all requested moves either relisted or closed before reaching the backlog. See WP:RMCI for closing instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apteva (talk • contribs) 01:17, 23 May 2013 UTC
- I did a few. Pretty unsatisfying work, which is probably why there's a backlog... -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have never done these, because the formal procedure is unreasonably complicated. If someone made a script, like for closing AfDs, then I would--but it would still leave the history merge problem which I doubt can be automated. I will not to history merges, because the few Idid , I got it wrong about half the time. Perhaps we could find a better way. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Nathan Johnson's closure is contested at WP:ANI. If you're Nathan, watch out if you want to< evaluate less-than-easy discussions and then briefly explain without adequate rationale. Otherwise, if you are another non-administrator, there are more in backlogs, but go for easiest first. I recommend that an administrator can evaluate more challenging discussions if well-experienced. --George Ho (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)- Since Dennis Brown makes sure that Nathan would know what he is going to do in regards to requested moves, I guess that I should not discriminate admins and non-admins. Actually, I will be careful of experiences. Still, Nathan swears that he'll make rationales next time. Back to this request, more experienced editor is needed. --George Ho (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've done a few and have to agree that it is quite draining to read all the discussion on what is often a quite trivial point. To DGG, most of these do not require a hsitmerge so you should be able to close them succesfully without fear of error. SpinningSpark 15:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
There is already a consensus... or not... but I want people to look through comments before making conclusions and counting votes. --George Ho (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
User_talk:Wwwhatsup#RFC was closed a few days ago (above) and the same editor decided to extend his forum-shopping by taking the other to RFC/U and the EL Noticeboard. The RFC is beyond it's 48 hours, wasn't transcluded properly anyway and has a near-zero chance of getting a 2nd certifier, despite some lovely canvassing to find someone. Can someone please put an end to this? Stalwart111 14:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done I've deleted it as an uncertified User RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Far from unanimous but consensus (both numerical and in discussion) seems to lean towards support for the proposed change in policy. I am obviously an involved party. This needs an uninvolved admin to close the discussion and judge whether the suggested modifications to the protection policy have community consensus; if they do, the policy needs to be updated to reflect that consensus (I don't mind doing that part if the closer prefers, just ping me.) Also, don't forget to unlist from WP:CENT once closed. RfC has been open for a month. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Discussion closed. I'd appreciate it if someone else did the other bits. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for your time. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 19:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Request for an admin to close after a 3 week RFC. Cross posted on AN. Blackmane (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not done. Consensus unclear. Wait until the full month has passed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Done closed by Nathan SlimVirgin (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
It's been a week since the RfC's term expired, and discussion appears to have ended. Requesting an uninvolved user to close and summarize the discussion. HeyMid (contribs) 19:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Closed as no consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
This RFC/U was opened a month ago, and discussion has become inactive for some time now, so I respectfully request an uninvolved admin or senior editor to measure the consensus and close it.
herein lie opinions and personal attacks not relevant to the request for closure. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
In my opinion, this was a failed exercise. The purpose of WP:RFC/U is to present evidence that an editor has a behavior problem, and convince him to voluntarily recognize that he has a problem, and resolve to improve his behavior. From the beginning, it was made clear that a central part of the behavior problem was tendentious editing, where each individual edit may be seen as possibly defensible, but the cumulative effect of these edits — the "totality of circumstances" — indicates that the editor is POV-pushing. Sadly, though several editors devoted a lot of time and patience presenting abundant documented evidence, the editor in question and his team of "defense Wikilawyers" set about defending each and every individual edit, never acknowledging that it was the cumulative effect of all those edits that was the problem. This case is scheduled to go back to ArbCom on July 1. |
Please measure consensus and close this failed attempt at a community based solution. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)#RfC: Should this article and the episode list article comply with MOS:TV
No activity since 1 June 2013. --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Request for closure: Talk:Michael_Gambon#RFC_Nationality
I am requesting an admin to close this RfC which has been open for the last few months. The RfC is in relation to a dispute over a bio's nationality that was changed to English without consensus. The editors contesting this change, including myself, attempted to offer a compromise to the editors who made the change without consensus but to no avail as there is an entrenchment. The discussion has now moved to dispute resolution, hopefully it will be resolved there without further escalation necessary. ÓCorcráin (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Request for uninvolved editor to speedy close this disruptive RFC per WP:SNOW started by an apparent single-purpose IP that has been blocked for canvassing. --B2C 21:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- When requesting a close, you should also attempt to be neutral. This discussion has generated a lot of text in 5 days, it now seems to have slowed, but I don't see any snow there. I'd suggest leaving this open for a while longer, then closing it with finality with a ban on future page moves for at least 1 year.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Done SlimVirgin (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
It has now been open over a month, and has mostly died down. Consensus looks fairly clear to my very involved eyes, but it would be good if we could have a formal closure from an uninvolved administrator. J Milburn (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
This RFC/U was opened a month ago, so I am requesting an uninvolved admin to gauge the consensus and close it. BOZ (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I second this request. Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm in the process of closing this. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Request an uninvolved admin to close the discussion at Category_talk:American_novelists#Stalemate. Consensus at the talk page was not to hold a formal RFC on this question, but this discussion linked was nonetheless broadly notified at various relevant wikiprojects.
At issue is a stalemate around categorization of American novelists - some think they should be fully diffused, others disagree, so the result is now the head category has only 82, very famous novelists. I think most people agree the head cat should be empty, or contain all novelists. Both sides also seem to agree on the need for a broader RFC on the Category:Writers tree, but I'd like to at least close this one out so we can break the stalemate and move on to the RFC, especially given intense media scrutiny around the contents of this specific category, it doesn't look good to have only 82 names there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Could a helpful person please close the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Linking subjects to books at your local library (Forward to Libraries)? It ran a full 30 days. The closer may want to review Template talk:Library resources box and also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 30#Template:Library resources box prior to closing. Thanks for the help. 64.40.54.196 (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you 64.40.54.77 (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
RfC bot has removed RfC listing Talk:Frédéric Fontang after 30 days
Although outcome clear this still needs formal admin closing particularly in regards to whether or not it bears on another 100 articles affected and whether another 1 or 100 RfCs are needed. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)