Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
2013
This non-free content review needs an experienced closer. Discussion commenced on 27 June and there's been no new comments added since 19 August. Warning: Lotsa plenty of reading here. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Emergency block of an edwith which I have been previously involved (initiated 13 November 2013)? Please determine the consensus of the block review requested by the blocking admin. Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#RFC - Primary and secondary sources for wind information (initiated 17 October 2013)? Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack/Archive 4#RFC - Primary and secondary sources for wind information. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#RfC: Should this Russian claim be in the Background or capabilities sections or somewhere else? (initiated 29 October 2013)? The most recent comment was 12 November 2013. Before that, there had been no comments since 1 November 2013. Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack/Archive 5#RfC: Should this Russian claim be in the Background or capabilities sections or somewhere else?. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This RfC was started on September 6h. The tag for this RfC seems to have been deleted. Can an admin please close? Thanks. GabrielF (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 146#MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed?. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NewOrleansAthleticClub/sandbox (initiated 14 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Closed by Bencherlite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:L'Origine du monde (2nd nomination) (initiated 14 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Bencherlite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
After a long and arduous discussion, we really need a third party admin to asses consensus here. Thank you.--Oakshade (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by SilkTork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#User:ProudIrishAspie and Infobox flags (initiated 3 November 2013)? There appears to be unanimous support for a topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Topic ban for ProudIrishAspie, but the discussion was archived without the consensus being assessed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by JodyB talk 02:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups (initiated 14 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Please close Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Collapsing music track lists, which has been dormant for more than one month, and has since been moved. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- (On a side note, the discussion here has been dormant for quite some time). --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Keithbob (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
There are two MRVs from October where discussion has gone fairly stale, and they're likely ready for closes. I'm afraid they won't be easy closes, or someone else would've done them already! --BDD (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've closed one, Ragamuffin War. This still leaves Native American boarding schools. I can't close that one as I participated.--Cúchullain t/c 15:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've just closed Native American boarding schools. Given the comments there I suspect some flak. Dpmuk (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Please could a level-headed, scrupulously uninvolved administrator close this rather acrimonious discussion before it degenerates further. Based on recent discussions including some of the participants, it will be taken to DRV if there is a hint of prior involvement, even from several years ago. Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 14:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Plastikspork and User:Lankiveil seem to be on WP:Wikibreaks. Can someone disposition this on their behalf, or let me know if I should take this to WP:DRV? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Not done There is nothing to close. You have the choice: you either wait for Plastikspork's answer or take it to DRV. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Open for several weeks. Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by DrKiernan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Activity involved in this incident ended on Tuesday, November 19th and conversation on that continues on WP:AN involves the rationale for and against these content changes. Discussion should be moved to Talk Pages. Liz Read! Talk! 17:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not done: doesn't need a formal close it's taken care of itself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Done Added a formal note about reversion of the move and RM discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jews/infobox#English as the predominant language (initiated 11 October 2013; see Talk:Jews/infobox#Request for comment)? The question posed was: "If English has become the most commonly spoken tongue among Jews and the primary language of communication between Jews of different countries today, can it be referred to as their lingua franca?" Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by FiachraByrne (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Craig Breslow#RfC: Youtube video (initiated 4 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "Should Breslow's appearance in a Youtube parody of Rex Ryan's foot fetish video be included in the article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Usage share of operating systems#RFC: TRON: The most popular OS ? (initiated 28 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sustainability#Engineering emerging technologies (initiated 7 October 2013)? See the subsection Talk:Sustainability#RFC on engineering sustainable development, where the opening poster wrote: "Is it appropriate to include short sections marked as incomplete with {{expand section}} templates describing, wikilinking to, and citing appropriate sources for carbon-neutral fuel, airborne wind power, and compressed air energy storage here in the Sustainability and in the Sustainable development articles?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:TheBus (Honolulu)/Archives/2014#RFC: Vehicle lists in "Fleet" section (initiated 4 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Should the vehicle lists in the "Fleet" section be removed from the article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of 20th Century Fox films (2001–present)#Split list? (initiated 6 October 2013; relisted as an RfC 5 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ender's Game (film)#RFC: Is Card's essay on Obama relevant? (initiated 11 November 2013)? A closure by an involved editor was reverted and a closure was requested; see the subsection Talk:Ender's Game (film)#Closure. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mafia state#RfC: Should the image of Putin be in this article (initiated 2 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive13#Return of the codeletters (initiated 27 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reward board#As we are going to keep this, do we need to tighten the criteria a bit? (initiated 9 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Bullying#RfC: Template links (initiated 28 October 2013)? The question posed was: "Should we restore the links that were removed from the template back in April? (before and after)" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Ban proposal: Sankararamank (initiated 2 December 2013)? If there is consensus for a site ban, please list the user at Wikipedia:List of banned users. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#RFC: POV fork issue between Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd (initiated 16 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
Do the Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd articles constitute a POV fork, should they be merged, and if they should be merged, under what breed name should they be merged - the original name (Mini Aussie) or the American Kennel Club-recognized name (Mini American)?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television#RfC: Should the Format parameter of Template:Infobox television be deleted? (initiated 7 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages#Should WP:MALPLACED include a prominent disclaimer note about its scope? (initiated 21 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals (initiated 24 October 2013)? Related RfCs were closed by Mdann52 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 8#Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy#RfC: Should WP:BRIGHTLINE become policy?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#RfC: Proposal: Less restrictive IPBE requirements for editors in good standing. (initiated 28 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kylie Minogue (initiated 26 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hermanborn/Herman Born & Sons (initiated 26 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 23:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abdul choudhary (initiated 27 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 23:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mona 78 (initiated 28 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved, experienced editor or admin close the discussion at Talk:Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)#Requested move, which has been languishing without consensus for three weeks? Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden (initiated 18 October 2013)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban of MiddayExpress (among other proposals). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden (initiated 18 October 2013)? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Proposed topic ban of MiddayExpress and the request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Summary of proprosal to ban User:Middayexpress from editing Matthew Bryden.
Also, there are two sections titled "Matthew Bryden" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817. I have not removed either of them because I'm unsure which one has the more up-to-date material. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- I was an involved party in this ANI discussion and I second the request for closure by an uninvolved Administrator. And I also thank User:Cunard for taking the initiative to post it here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Open for over four weeks including relisting. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- This discussion is still open and awaits an Admin for closure.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not done It's been relisted a few times. If on the 20th/21st it remains unclosed for a day or two relist here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Discussion was relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_13#Template:WLeague_NUJ. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
This has been running since 17 November. No-one seems able to call a halt to it. Consensus seems pretty much set, but occasional !votes do still dribble in. It ought to be uncontroversial. Even so it will take an admin with a clear head and a decent ability to summaries a rationale. Please let us not have a verdict of No Consensus! Fiddle Faddle 23:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Msrasnw/Richard J H Matthews (initiated 28 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Add a article to be reviewed (initiated 29 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peter Sellers#Infobox (initiated 25 July 2013; converted to an RfC 12 November 2013). Save for a lone comment on 8 December 2013, there have been no comments since 19 November 2013. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias#RfC: Should the name Caxias have its pronunciation indicated? (initiated 31 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). 17:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 26#T:WPTECH? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please close this discussion as consensus has been attained + requested by the user who initiated the discussion. Ali Fazal (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor asses the lack of consensus at Talk:John_Calvin#Request_for_comment:_PoV_section? Please consider the previous RfCs Talk:John_Calvin#NPOV_dispute_.22Securing_the_Reformation.22_section in your closure. Thanks, Markewilliams (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
If an early close would be beneficial, would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC (initiated 8 November 2013)? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Anime and Manga RfC - Update, request for closure and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC#Statement by Sven Manguard. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I've made a note at the discussion to see if an early close would be amendable to the participants. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sex Pistols#British/English (initiated 31 October 2013)? At its subsection Talk:Sex Pistols#Straw poll, the question posed was: "The purpose of this poll is to gauge the current consensus regarding referring to the Sex Pistols as a) British, or b) English." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Main Page#Main page redesign (initiated 14 September 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Talk:Main Page/Archive 177#Main page redesign. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've left a message on User:Edokter's talk page asking if he/she would like a formal close on this thread. If they say yes, then I will attempt to provide a summary and close in the next day or two. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure this needs 'closure'. It is an open-ended discussion, and one that is likely to be raised again in the near future. — Edokter (talk) — 19:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done? In that case I recommend that this thread be archived.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure this needs 'closure'. It is an open-ended discussion, and one that is likely to be raised again in the near future. — Edokter (talk) — 19:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've left a message on User:Edokter's talk page asking if he/she would like a formal close on this thread. If they say yes, then I will attempt to provide a summary and close in the next day or two. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rand Paul#RfC on placement of alleged Plagiarism (initiated 2 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the Plagiarism Allegation be a separate section?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by
Zad6804:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_tendentious_editing_at_Talk:Morgellons? At the time of this writing, the discussion has been open for five days and there are 8 support !votes, zero other !votes. Thanks.... Zad68 04:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Liao Dynasty#RfC: Bohai or Balhae (initiated 10 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's going to pose a bit of a problem. While the discussion at this talk page was reasonable & informative, the best solution offered, prima facie, was to take the issue to Talk: Balhae & obtain an opinion there. After all, usage & transliteration should be consistent across Wikipedia. One glance at the talk page there shows that this very subject -- Bohai vs. Balhae -- is hotly disputed, & not likely to be resolved soon. Anyone wanting to resolve this issue one way or the other would best start by building a consensus at Talk: Balhae first, but what do I know? -- llywrch (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This was raised October 3rd by an indefinitely blocked editor. It has 3 supports. One by someone now indefinitely banned from the topic area, one today by an obvious IP sock, and one other from TheRedPenOfDoom. Also 3 oppose !votes - I haven't !voted myself. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Peter David#New old photo (initiated 1 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of vaporware#RfC: Is the current requirement for sources reasonable? (initiated 20 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban proposal for User:Mr Wiki Pro (initiated 20 December 2013)? Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions states: "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Oranjelo100 (initiated 21 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Topic ban proposal for Michaeltleslie (initiated 18 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WhatGuy/Sandbox2 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WhatGuy/Sandbox3
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WhatGuy/Sandbox2 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WhatGuy/Sandbox3 (initiated 4 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Both Closed by JohnCD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please close this discussion as consensus has been attained. Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The RFC on template use started a month ago. If consensus has reached, close it. --George Ho (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The discussion was opened on October 25 and there has been no discussion since November 9. The RfC question is (posed by User:SlimVirgin): should the template be reverted to the pre-May 2013 version, and retained only for use on file pages? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done / closed - jc37 18:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Please can an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 25#Category:Rape victims?
It has been opened for nearly 2 months, and discussion is now sporadic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done / closed - waiting to implement to give the opportunity for listification. - jc37 18:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
There are a bunch of uncontroversial closes to be made in this month-old batch of categories. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Now only Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_22#Category:Horse_burials needs closure from this page. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done / closed - jc37 19:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mafh01/sandbox/lunch box (initiated 2 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rough consensus (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/RfC to add Pending Changes to all BLP with few or no watchers (initiated 23 November 2013)? The last comment was on 16 December 2013. The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Putin#dictator and "American diplomatic cables" (initiated 9 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MilesMoney : edits in various articles (categories, sources) (initiated 15 December 2013)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: MilesMoney topic-banned from all WP:BLP content. Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- This discussion has been going on for almost two weeks, to the point that it has even split into two sub-discussions. Would an uninvolved admin care to try to assess all this? Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 07:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates (initiated 7 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I read through it all, but just got lost in the nuances of the various perspectives and proposals. It's probably a "no consensus", but I think I'll leave it to someone more clueful than I to close it : ) - jc37 18:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done, no consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Category:International aquatic competitions hosted in Spain (initiated 16 December 2013)? The last post was 19 December 2013. An uninvolved admin wrote:
Not convinced that 3RR applies here. The bottom line is that the categories need to be repopulated and a full discussion started if someone wants to move content. This is not a content dispute, it is a naming convention issue!
The opening poster has not repopulated the categories. Admin guidance would be helpful in determining whether the opening poster is allowed to undo the out-of-process category renaming based on the discussion's consensus which would prevent the opening poster from being accused of edit warring. Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 05:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
This AfD has been split up into multiple sections and the discussion has been contentious at times. Most of the !votes are keep, but there is at least one delete !vote, with another editor staying neutral and suggesting a no consensus closure. It doesn't look like much more productive discussion can go forward, so having it closed sooner rather than later might be a good thing. It was opened early on 21 December 2013, so it has been going for at least seven days. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Lankiveil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 14:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
2014
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article? (initiated 22 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Edward Snowden#added videos (initiated 16 October 2013; see the subsection at Talk:Edward Snowden#RfC: Should the links to the four Sam Adams Award videos be deleted?). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#When nominations for awards is all there is (initiated 6 December 2013)? The proposal is for "removal of ANYBIO's and PORNBIO's references to mere nominations for awards as a sufficient criterion for a standalone article".
Please consider the previous related discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO again (initiated 4 October 2013) in your close. My recommendation to the closer is to make the later section on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#When nominations for awards is all there is) a subsection of the earlier section about the dispute (Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO again). Then please consider the arguments made in all the sections and determine the consensus (or lack of it).
As an editor noted at the discussion:
For some history, this was discussed in an various extensive discussions and RfCs:
As asked for in the most recent edit to the guideline page, an uninvolved editor's closure is requested. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done I closed the RfC. Along with the earlier discussion, it demonstrated overwhelming consensus for the removal of award nominations from PORNBIO. — Scott • talk 00:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Scott Martin: No, you have closed a completely different RfC on the same page. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Respectfully, you're incorrect. That discussion began with a proposal affecting both ANYBIO and PORNBIO, but as one user commented, it was "really being driven by a frustration with the PORNBIO standard". The discussion then became specifically about PORNBIO, which led to the RfC. The RfC indicated two things: broad consensus for modifying PORNBIO, and no consensus for modifying ANYBIO. With that, the discussion is resolved. — Scott • talk 12:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, you're incorrect. The discussion you closed isn't even mentioned in this closure request, and the ones mentioned are unclosed. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Facepalm You're either being pedantic or haven't actually read and understood the discussions in question. The entire process on that talk page lead to the RfC, which superseded both prior conversations and resolved the issue. If your complaint is that I didn't put the discussions directly linked to above into a box, well, you're free to do that. Knock yourself out. Cunard requested above for an admin to consider the arguments made in all the sections and determine the consensus (or lack of it)
, and that's what I did. — Scott • talk 15:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)- @Scott Martin: Cunard also said "My recommendation to the closer is to make the later section on the talk page [...] a subsection of the earlier section about the dispute", which you clearly failed to do. You have closed the discussion, therefore I think you should (and only you can) do that (only you know, which sections you considered in your closure, which BTW is completely missing any mention of the "no consensus for modifying ANYBIO" you mentioned in your post on this page). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- In order to make you happy I have squished everything up into boxes. In future, when I close discussions, I shall simply not bother reporting the fact here, as this is evidently the administrative peanut gallery. — Scott • talk 12:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Scott Martin: Cunard also said "My recommendation to the closer is to make the later section on the talk page [...] a subsection of the earlier section about the dispute", which you clearly failed to do. You have closed the discussion, therefore I think you should (and only you can) do that (only you know, which sections you considered in your closure, which BTW is completely missing any mention of the "no consensus for modifying ANYBIO" you mentioned in your post on this page). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, you're incorrect. The discussion you closed isn't even mentioned in this closure request, and the ones mentioned are unclosed. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Respectfully, you're incorrect. That discussion began with a proposal affecting both ANYBIO and PORNBIO, but as one user commented, it was "really being driven by a frustration with the PORNBIO standard". The discussion then became specifically about PORNBIO, which led to the RfC. The RfC indicated two things: broad consensus for modifying PORNBIO, and no consensus for modifying ANYBIO. With that, the discussion is resolved. — Scott • talk 12:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Scott Martin: No, you have closed a completely different RfC on the same page. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Young Justice (TV series)#RfC: Should a link to Young Justice Wiki be included? (initiated 28 October 2013)? Please see the 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC) comment by 74.192.84.101 (talk · contribs) at the bottom of the discussion: "...I suggest we bring in somebody uninvolved to close out the RfC, and determine if we have enough of a consensus, or not." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus and close this merge discussion? Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 18:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alejandro García Padilla#Should we include graphs about Puerto Rico's economic behavior under the Governor's tenure? (initiated 15 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Edinburgh#RfC: Content of the Lead (initiated 18 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not done. Editors in the RfC have already come to an agreement on the lead and appropriate changes were implemented here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Cunard (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools#RFC: Must every item listed in this comparison article have a Wikipedia article? (initiated 15 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Convert/Archive December 2013#Request to switch to Module:Convert (initiated 19 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "I propose we should migrate convert to use the module Module:Convert now, as it seems it's ready for prime time now. I understand this is a big switch, so please decide wisely." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone would mark this as moot because Template:Convert was switched to use Module:Convert at 02:15, 11 December 2013 by Trappist the monk. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done already per above comment. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- A formal closure was added by Cunard. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Minphie and Drug Free Australia's call "WIKIPEDIA EDITORS URGENTLY NEEDED" (initiated 8 December 2013)? A participant wrote:
Would an uninvolved admin be able to close this discussion? StAnselm (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: Admin User:Rschen7754 indef blocked User:Minphie on 8 December 2013, prior to the start of the discussion. There is discussion about the block, but two uninvolved admins User:JamesBWatson and User:only have turned down unblock requests on 10 December 2013 and 28 December 2013 respectively. This discussion may not need to be closed, as the issues discussed seem to be handled in their current methods. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I listed this because of StAnselm's request. I agree that because the issues have been handled this can be archived as closure request withdrawn. Cunard (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Could an experienced and sane editor assess the consensus at Talk:Teenage pregnancy#RFC on including or excluding Mary, Mother of Jesus. The RFC was opened on 2 December 2013 to establish consensus on whether to include or exclude Mary, Mother of Jesus as a historical example of teenage pregnancy. Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
If someone could read through this discussion (which petered out on December 20th) and determine whether or not there is consensus to move the page, that would be appreciated. Cheers, -sche (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done --BDD (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
open for over a month, including the multiple relistings. Frietjes (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done by JamesBWatson. --BDD (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion stalled since 18 November. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Fayenatic london (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 14:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
open for more than 10 days, and discussion has become stale. Frietjes (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over the 7 days (relist). LibStar (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- An editor has just said they'd integrate new sources; I'm waiting until tommorow night to relist after improvements but have also offered to userfy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Relisted (again) by User:Salvidrim!. - JamesBWatson (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States#Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey (initiated 1 December 2013)? See the subsection Talk:United States#Survey. WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria (initiated 18 October 2013)? Please consider the previous RfCs Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013 in your closure. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Procedural request. I am neutral. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 06:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've listed this for closure at WP:AN a few days ago with no action. this is an AfD that now has gone over 12 days and requires closure. thanks. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed. De728631 (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:NFCR open discussions
We need some uninvolved admin to hopped over to WP:NFCR if you have some free time, as there are many discussions over a month old that should be closed:
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus performing at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards.jpg
- Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#NFL on Fox
- Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#NFL on CBS
- Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg
- Closed by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Shooting of Trayvon Martin
- Relisted in a new section of the page in this edit. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Second Generation (advertisement)
- Closed by ТимофейЛееСуда (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
There are also multiple other discussion that can be safely closed as they are past the 7-day mark. Please take a moment to help out, even if it is just for one discussion when you have some time. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Please disposition Template_talk:Track_listing#Collapsibility. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
It needs a closer. --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over the 7 days. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 10:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Requesting close as 250,000+ readers have seen the merge discussion over the last 3+ months with no comments on the matter for a solid month. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This very long discussion has pretty much gone all over the place, has been stalled for a few days, and also looks like the OP might be hit with a boomerang. (I am uninvolved.) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 20:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Related RM discussion now closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved editor close this move review discussion? Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 17:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Dpmuk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion stalled since 8 December. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Was archived after several dozen support and oppose entries along with many additional comments, includes a community sanction proposal that needs uninvolved administrator closure (and if consensus for found, enactment). Was open for six days, active for four then idle for two and archived. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
| This isn't the place to continue the dispute, but to request the closure of discussions. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The information in the above hatted section shows that provocative interaction by The Rambling Man is continuing, even after the third ANI was allowed to go dormant without closure. It is continuing even on this thread, with TRM "reserving the right" to "publish my life story". Perusal of the ANI shows an obvious 4-to-1 consensus in favor of an interaction ban. Medeis and Baseball Bugs have requested this repeatedly, and TRM does not oppose it. Please impose the requested interaction ban. Failure to close serves no purpose other than continued disruption. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
|
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community_sanctions:_The_Rambling_Man.2C_Baseball_Bugs.2C_and_Medeis - closed. I thought it pointless to unarchive to close, then re-archive after the close. But if some uninvolved editor thinks it should be displayed (or at least linked to) at WP:AN/I or WP:AN, please feel free at your discretion. - jc37 18:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Open for longer than seven days without a relist. (I am uninvolved.) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 20:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- We have quite a backlog at the moment, and there's about 90 other AFDs that need to be handled before this one. Please be patient. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
This RfD has now been open for 12 days and is failing to gain any new opinions despite disagreement continuing; I think everything useful has been said that could be said. Closing it would aid the current parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts, as indicators of current practice (typically taking the form of RfD decisions) are sorely needed. Thank you. — Scott • talk 13:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed just now by BHG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Andajara120000 initiated an RfC before being blocked as a sock of User:Johnjohnjames. There has been no discussion and the question itself looks suspicious. Can I non-admin close this RfC with no further issue? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Daniel Craig#Request for comments (initiated 22 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Which image should be added in the infobox? The present image which was captured in 2009 or This image taken in 2012 at Skyfall premier ?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Riga supermarket roof collapse#List of deceased: Paragraph of bulleted points in columns? (initiated 25 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Merkin#RfC: "Pubic wig" or "a wig for the pudendum"? (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Liberty University#RfC: Is a John Lofton's American View material suitable for inclusion? (initiated 4 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Simpsons#The Adult Genre (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012#RFC: Should a list of endorsements include people who quietly donated? (initiated 26 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jimmy McMillan#Picture choice (initiated 31 October 2013; RfC tag added 3 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 111#As WP uses HTTPS, should (some) external links, too? (initiated 16 November 2013)?
If there is a consensus for any changes, would the closer file a bugzilla to notify the developers of the consensus, or if that's not the correct venue, post the change where it's appropriate? Or maybe modify any guideline/information page per the discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed. As the discussion doesn't contain any comments regarding the implementation of the decision, therefore no other steps are needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Quranism#RfC: Should Chiragh Ali be removed from the list of advocates of Quranism? (initiated 11 December 2013)? See also the discussion at Talk:Quranism#RfC seems to have completed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Armenian American#RfC:Shall an image of Kim Kardashian be included in the collage in the article's infobox? (initiated 10 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Patriotic Nigras#RfC: Should the Patriotic Nigras Website link be included in the article? (initiated 11 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Should the website of a known trolling and hacking group be included in this article and does it or could it present a serious security risk to Wikipedia viewers and editors and therefore should be removed?" A participant wrote:
This RfC [comes] after an unsuccessful AfD, an ELNO-based removal, a claim that the URL doesn't in fact reflect an official website, and an AN/I request) ...
An RfC close will hopefully resolve this dispute which has been occurring since at least November 2012 (see ELNO-based removal). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: The discussion was "closed" by User:Thibbs on 11 December 2013 with no comments or interpretations of consensus. Thibbs' edit summary reads: "Closing expired RfC without comment or summary. Someone else can add that if it's felt to be necessary." User:Thibbs was a part of the discussion and his close should probably be reverted per WP:INVOLVED and then the RFC closed appropriately. There has been no discussion since 20 November 2013. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Objection: Hi ТимофейЛееСуда and others. I just wanted to note that I object to the idea that any of my edits have implicated WP:INVOLVED. We should be clear here that I'm not an admin and that I wasn't performing any kind of administrative action. As noted above, the RfC had already expired and when I "closed" the thread there hadn't been a comment in over 3 weeks. The consensus is exceptionally clear in this case and my neutral "close" (i.e. "without comment or summary") explicitly invited comments from others. Even if I were an admin I'd vouchsafe that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion as I had. Anyway feel free to revert my "closure" if it was indeed inappropriate but I think it would be a ridiculous waste of time, and I disagree that it's "per WP:INVOLVED". -Thibbs (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- No objections to a formal closure with comment and summary of course. -Thibbs (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Objection: Hi ТимофейЛееСуда and others. I just wanted to note that I object to the idea that any of my edits have implicated WP:INVOLVED. We should be clear here that I'm not an admin and that I wasn't performing any kind of administrative action. As noted above, the RfC had already expired and when I "closed" the thread there hadn't been a comment in over 3 weeks. The consensus is exceptionally clear in this case and my neutral "close" (i.e. "without comment or summary") explicitly invited comments from others. Even if I were an admin I'd vouchsafe that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion as I had. Anyway feel free to revert my "closure" if it was indeed inappropriate but I think it would be a ridiculous waste of time, and I disagree that it's "per WP:INVOLVED". -Thibbs (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The consensus appears to be very clear here. Could an uninvolved editor please close this RFC now that a reasonable amount of time has passed ( days as of this post) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion stalled since 9 December. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 23:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Contentious move request open for the past three weeks. No new arguments have been presented in the last week or so. Hot Stop 02:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by ThaddeusB (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 14:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC: Does the "Romney and Delphi" section belong on Singer's personal page? (initiated 21 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Marriage#Abbreviations (initiated 21 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
My initial request was not to change widowed and survived to "d." but to change "d." to the obviously unambiguous "div.", I think now it is better to change this template so that instead of using abbreviations we've made up ourselves, we use abbreviations that are already common practice:
These abbreviations in brackets beside the spouse's name would indicate to me that they apply to the spouse, i.e. the spouse died or was widowed in that year.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Producerism#"Massive destruction" (initiated 22 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
An edit war is brewing at Producerism between proponents of this version (which we'll call Version A), and proponents of this other version (Version B). Opinions from other editors are needed; which version is more consistent with Wikipedia policies, and/or useful to the reader?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Main Page/Archive 178#Expansion of TFL on the main page (initiated 4 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should Today's featured list appear twice a week on the Main page, rather than just on Mondays?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Diverging diamond interchange#RfC: Regarding the North American sections (initiated 18 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Muhammad#Illiteracy (initiated 19 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "Is his illiteracy notable enough to be in the infobox?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Cleanup listing (initiated 31 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by MER-C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 12:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive258#Closure review request (initiated 18 January 2014)? Please close the closure review after enough time has passed and consensus has been reached. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment (initiated 24 October 2013)? Although the RfC has only two participants, previous discussions on the talk page have had significant participation:
- Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights (initiated 24 August 2013)
- Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"? (initiated 22 October 2013)
- Talk:Mark Steyn#So now we have a edit war (initiated 22 October 2013)
My recommendation to the closer is to make the later sections on the talk page (Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"?, Talk:Mark Steyn#So now we have a edit war, and Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment) subsections of the earlier section about the dispute Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights. Then please consider the arguments made in all the sections and determine the consensus (or lack of it).
The dispute is about the phrasing in the lead sentence (describing the subject as a "free-speech activist", "free-speech advocate", and/or "human rights activist"). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Here's the complicating factor IMO: IMO (based on my recollection which could be wrong) the "stable version" said "Mark Steyn is... a self-described free-speech activist", and since "self-described" has too much of a "so-called" vibe, pretty much nobody wants that. This was changed to "Mark Steyn is... a free-speech activist", but IMO that's not a valid stable version (it was let stand by me and others to avoid warring over the matter; that is, there was no consensus to replace "self-described free-speech activist" with "free-speech activist" as opposed to replacing "self-described free-speech activist" with nothing, it just ended that way randomly because the "replace 'self-described free-speech activist' with nothing" faction didn't wish to battle over the matter.)
- So IMO looking at it and saying "no consensus, keep current stable version" won't work here. Somebody, somehow, has to decide between these two lede openings:
- "Mark Steyn (born December 8, 1959) is a Canadian-born writer, conservative political commentator and free speech activist."
- "Mark Steyn (born December 8, 1959) is a Canadian-born writer and conservative political commentator."
- I summed this up at Talk:Mark Steyn#Arbitrarary break, let's look at where we are, hopefully fairly and helpfully. Reading that will give a quick and (I hope) fair overview. Since we see a 5-5-2 (or maybe 6-6) split in headcount, it looks like our options are to run another (properly listed) RfC on this fairly trivial matter, or for some uninvolved person to decide based on strength of argument. (I hope that the person deciding would consider best practices for ledes generally and what we do with similar articles, but that's up to her.) It can be done in about an hour or so is my guess. Herostratus (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- If it helps motivate anyone, I just cleared the second-oldest entry on this list, so maybe someone will help us out on this one? Herostratus (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed partially in appreciation for Herostratus taking care of another old item - thanks Herostratus! --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No new input for several days, a consensus has been reached and the discussion is stagnating. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, now there's been further input, but only to make the consensus even clearer than it was before, and we're going round in circles again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Writ Keeper (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 10:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Sloggerbum Stale Drafts (initiated 22 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by BDD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed as delete. MER-C 03:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law (initiated 3 September 2013)? At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Restoring (and then closing) a deleted RFC, the RfC initiator wrote: "Incidentally, once the RFC is restored, it would be great if an administrator could then close it, as there had been no new posts for several weeks." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done --BDD (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
This one clearly failed to obtain consensus. For the record, I !voted in favor of the changes. I'm half-tempted to close it myself as "no consensus" but perhaps an uninvolved editor may wish to summarize the discussion or include recommendations on how best to proceed forward. (No admin action is required I don't think, so any experienced editor is welcome to close it.) Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done --BDD (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
open for over a month, including the multiple relistings. Frietjes (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done by Armbrust. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion stalled since 11 January. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done --BDD (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:BP#RfC: Has this article become a forum for anti-BP sentiment? (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Talk:BP/Archive 22#RfC: Has this article become a forum for anti-BP sentiment?. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done --BDD (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I am requesting that an uninvolved admin with experience in files for deletion discussions close this one. Its been open since 8 January, and it seems that all the relevant points have already been made at least once. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done --BDD (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion stalled since 19 December. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Fayenatic london (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Y (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. Please close this, which will clearly be Denied (i.e. rejecting my requested move), as a CfD is waiting on this. – Fayenatic London 17:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted by Amakuru. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done @Fayenatic london: - as the editor who relisted this yesterday, I was happy to close this as a clear no consensus following this request. — Amakuru (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Swdandap malfeasance (initiated 17 December 2013)? Please assess whether there is a consensus for a block. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would also like this looked at and don't feel comfortable doing it myself since another editor thought I was not impartial. Don't think this should be just dropped like the first ANI was regarding same stuff from same person. — Brianhe (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experience editor assess the consensus at Talk:Petronilla_of_Aragon#Request_for_comment_on_main_image which was opened on Oct 9, 2013? The discussion is of moderate length and is in regard to a proposed photo and whether or not it is suitable for the article. Thank you, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Talk:A Boy Was Born#Should the lead sentence include the phrase "(correctly titled A Boy was Born)"?
Discussion is calming down a bit. --George Ho (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done. That Was weird. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
1 January 2014 MfDs
There are a large number of 1 January 2014 MfDs that have had little participation:
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Template:American Idol
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/The Saturdays disc
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Our Versions of Events
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Down For Whatever
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Paloma Faith
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/will.i.am
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Misha B
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Emeli Sande
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Nicki Minaj
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Read All About It (Part III)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Natalie Bassingthwaighte
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Christmas Gift
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Matt Cardle
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Chasing The Saturdays
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/What About Us
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Living for the Weekend
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/The Saturdays
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/The X Factor (Australia)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Nicole Scherzinger
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Melanie Brown
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Alexandra Burke
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AmberLayla93
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Mojo Hand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun control#Authoritarianism and gun control RFC (initiated 16 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- The article gun control is currently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Proceduraly Closed by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 13:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Proceduraly
This has been open since December 31th and the last actual !vote was on January 10th. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 13:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone well over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Mojo Hand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion stalled since 10 December 2013. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Splash (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Open for more than 2 months. Discussion stalled on 9 January. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Splash (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
First listed on 8 November. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done — Scott • talk 10:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiTeX (initiated 28 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AnTech Ltd/Coiled Tubing Drilling (initiated 18 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The rfc template was removed, so the outcome must have been obvious, but two of us disagree on which way the result went. Could an uninvolved admin please formally close it? Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Closed --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Darkwind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Lots to close - move requests!
- Talk:Uroševac#Requested move 2
- Closed by BD2412 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Talk:Emmett Brown#Requested move_2013
- Closed by BD2412 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Talk:Friendly Fire#Requested move
- Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The discussion is now at Talk:Friendly Fire (disambiguation)#Requested move. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Talk:Days of our Lives#Requested move_2013
- Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Talk:Counting Stars (song)#Requested move 3
- Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I participated in some, fwiw, but these have all been languishing for some time, having been open over a month. Red Slash 01:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion stalled since 6 January. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Splash (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive258#Laura Hale topic ban (initiated 6 January 2014)? There may not be a consensus for the proposals there, but I note that the subject of the discussion posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Statement by LauraHale that:
I would be more than happy to accept a six month requirement that before I move any article to the main space that heavily relies on Spanish language sources, that it be vetted by a native language Spanish speaker who has read all the sources and checked the accuracy of my text against the article, and then have that person comment on the draft article talk page before moving it.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
snow delete if there ever was one. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Lankiveil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Older CfD awaiting an easy close. --BDD (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Splash (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion has stalled, and a consensus appears to have been reached. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Splash (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 23:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
This RfC has gone a week, and it looks like the discussion has finished, but I think it needs a formal close. StAnselm (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by NE Ent (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 12:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alter ego#Singular focus on psychological usage, ignoring common usage (initiated 2 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
This article as is, is entirely focused on the psychological usage, and totally ignores the common usage of the phrase. I am not sure of the best way to resolve this. Maybe this should be a disambiguation page or, else, the page should explain both usages in the lede with two main sections for each usage?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion stalled for 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette#Lung function (initiated 24 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#RfC: Should the budget section of the infobox stipulate a budget range of $200–315 million? (initiated 29 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox single#Pluralizing "Producer" (initiated 28 December 2013)? If there is sufficient consensus for the proposal, please implement the consensus at Template:Infobox single (or ask an admin to implement the consensus since the page is fully protected). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Cleanup listing (initiated 12 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Inam Ur Rehman (initiated 11 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dedhiyaparas (initiated 9 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PMDrive1061/Sharples filmography (initiated 6 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Panchgachia (initiated 4 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Go2sonusingh (initiated 4 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dancingwiththestars09 (initiated 18 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rev.TerryC.Barber (initiated 23 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:DSWADR (initiated 23 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/list of films with all star cast (initiated 22 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abdullah Karim (Abdee) (initiated 17 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:New Zealand's Got Talent Season 2/sandbox (initiated 15 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Coolfunkid (initiated 15 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Joshua odongo onono (initiated 15 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Robinyson/Builder Account Coordinator FAQ (initiated 13 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Daily Mail#RfC on adding substantial number of lawsuits (initiated 26 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Ought the list of lawsuits be greatly expanded, as listed above, for the reasons given in the posts suggesting them." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Claude Monet#RfC: Are the galleries in the Monet article excessive? (initiated 15 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dr.Dolal (initiated 18 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts (initiated 19 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Bloody hell that was hard work! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Date range redux (initiated 25 November 2013; relisted as an RfC 29 December 2013)? The last comment was made on 8 January 2013. The second poster in the discussion wrote:
Request to formally insert language that an 8-digit date range format be allowable for sport tenures. This was discussed ad nauseum to no firm resolution in April (see here)
A number of the participants have supported this editor's proposal based on a cursory review, though I don't know if it rises to the level of a consensus. The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 109#On Orphan tags again (initiated 23 December 2013)? The discussion's opening poster sought to overturn the decision at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Proposal to move the Orphan tags to the talk page. There are other proposals at the discussion about how to handle orphaned articles, and there are opposing views at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#This rfC is disruptive and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#This rfC is not disruptive. The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC (initiated 5 December 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion which says that this is "[a] general discussion for purposes of a periodic review of the username policy and enforcement of same".
There are some concrete proposals there, such as at Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC#"Only edits are to AFC submission" which discusses whether "names that might otherwise be blockable should be given more leniency if their only edits are to articles for creation".
A closure could help in revising Wikipedia:Username policy if there is any consensus for any of the proposals. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
RFC expired. NE Ent 00:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was just on my way here, but I see you bat me to it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Soft deletion/Proposed deletion (initiated 24 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by DavidLeighEllis (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Iamobaidur (initiated 16 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by BDD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 18:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)