This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#On the topic of "Appearance and color" and line-height (initiated 23 June 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Long-winded re-re-rehash that has gone on more than long enough. Note that the essentially identical. concurrent RM at Talk:Hit-Girl (character)#Requested move 14 August 2014 has already closed. There's no reason for parties to be allowed to kind of mutually forum-shop on this question any longer at a different page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved admin/user with some knowledge of copyright/ WP:NFCC take a look at this discussion and make a unbiased close? Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 17:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Open since 29 April. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved administrator please close this deletion discussion. This discussion was opened after a deletion review which was opened after the original deletion discussion. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 12:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved administrator please close this deletion discussion. This discussion was opened 3 days after I closed another discussion about the image. Fortunately this discussion had more participation and a good close would, regardless of outcome, likely stop the nominator from re-nominating a third time in a month. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 14:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Open for over one week, sending now to get ahead of bottleneck. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 03:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Although the editor was blocked for 3 months there is still the outstanding discussion of a topic ban. 12 supports for a topic ban (some wanting to go further), one against, one for a block. Dougweller ( talk) 13:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#RfC: Is the effect of Joran van der Sloot's murder of Stephany Flores relevant? (initiated 1 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist)#RfC: Should Fred Hiatt's quotes in this article be given special prominence over quotes from Rubin's critics? (initiated 28 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Merge text from one section of Global Warming Controversy (initiated 17 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Request for comment (initiated 20 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this Rasmussen poll be included in the article?" Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:The Edge#The Edge should be capital "T" or lower-case "t" in running prose? (initiated 26 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Donald Trump#"people associated with the Tea Party movement" (initiated 28 July 2014)? Please consider Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement in your close. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement? Please consider Talk:Donald Trump#"people associated with the Tea Party movement" in your close. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jesus#RfC: Should the term "Jesus of Galilee" be included in the lead? (initiated 25 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Persondata template be removed from articles? (initiated 20 July 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 August#Oriya language (initiated 28 August 2014)? Although the discussion has not gone on for seven days, participants have called for a speedy close as wrong venue. Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Economy of Pakistan#RfC: What should be the poverty threshold? (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities#Size again (initiated 18 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Arranged marriage#RFC - Lede, timeframe, use of historical terms (initiated 25 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road#RfC: recast vs reboot? (initiated 28 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RFC on word choice and cross-cultural sensitivity (initiated 29 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Add something about never using headlines as sources? (initiated 29 July 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC, where the proposal is:
Are headlines for newspaper articles ever usable as a reliable source for any claim where the headline claim is not found in the body of the newspaper article?
Should this content guideline state:
- Newspaper headlines are not a reliable source and should not be used
Please consider Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 43#RfC – are newspaper headlines a reliable source per se? (initiated 12 June 2014) in your close. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Should the R3 criterion (Implausible typos) be broadened? (initiated 8 August 2014)? Other than one comment made 22 August 2014 and and another made 29 August 2014, there has been little participation since 19 August 2014. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please close this. The same person (using two different IP addresses) has !voted "keep" three times, refusing to acknowledge that a record of who has contributed to the discussion is kept in the page history, claiming each is a different person. Having edit-warred to keep his three votes in place, they remain the only opinions in favour of retention against a number of policy-based deletion opinions. We are unfairly delaying the inevitable; allowing him to flog a long-dead horse. St★lwart 111 23:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Question about WP:NACD (initiated 4 August 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#RfC: Should non-admins reopen deletion discussions after an NAC? (initiated 6 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism#WikiProject Autism banners on biographical article talk pages (initiated 1 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Should the MediaWiki software be modified to include an option for specialized (such as blacklist / whitelist) blocks? (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Should the wording of CSD A7 be changed? (initiated 7 August 2014)? The last comment was made 13 August 2014. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Could an admin impliment WP:VPP#Change the name of reviewers to "Pending changes reviewer" please? The RfC has run for close to a month now, and consensus seems clear enough to me. Implimentation notes are included at [1] - please note nothing is needed on the dev side, and all needs to be implimented locally. Please let me know if you need guidence on this. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 07:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 14:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Listed for a month now, consensus (IMO) has moved to keep. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 14:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Somaly Mam#RfC: see-also link to Greg Mortenson (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pariah state#RfC: Is the List section original research? (initiated 10 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)#Article title – Request for Comments (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It started out about one person. However, the comments became more about all other band members, which confused me. I think I need assistance on consensus please. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Looking for an admin to close this. It's run for 30 days and is definitely ready for closing KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Flatlist or comma separated lists? (initiated 31 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 4#accreditation (initiated 14 July 2014)? The discussion at Talk:Creation Museum#Resolved? indicates that 22 editors participated in the discussion. Because of the discussion's complexity (one editor called it " Longest RfC discussion ever"), I believe a closure would be helpful in determining and recording the consensus. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion seemed routine at first, but a couple of late comments make it less than obvious that this should be a routine close. I.E., The first seven respondents all gave support, but the last two articulated only partial support for specific reasons that may need consideration. Discussion was opened a full week ago.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Requesting a formal close. I believe consensus on this is fairly clear-cut, but given the controversial long-term nature of the overall discussion it's probably best to have an uninvolved editor handle the assessment just to keep everything on the up and up. DonIago ( talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 August#2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (initiated 16 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Process for deleting drafts? This RFC started a few months ago, and the last comment was in June, but the discussion was never closed. Thanks! Steel1943 ( talk) 15:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism (initiated 8 July 2014) and Talk:Autism#Compromise proposal: "people who are autistic" (initiated 4 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for the 4 August discussion. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Review of Admin RFC Closure (removal of book by Koenraad Elst in Further reading section of an article) (initiated 26 August 2014) after there has been sufficient participation and sufficient time has passed? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 22:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC Talk:Of Human Feelings#Last sentence in Critical reception (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Chinese#RfC: How to display the characters (initiated 27 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this template display simplified Chinese characters first or traditional Chinese characters first?" Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2013 IRS controversy#"we need to be cautious about what we say in emails" (initiated 10 July 2014)? See the subsection Talk:2013 IRS controversy#RFC. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:LeBron James#Should the List of 40-plus point games by LeBron James be included in the "see also" section, or should it not? (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Unopposed (if low-participation) cleanup proposal has run for three months. Way long enough for objections to have been raised. While a non-admin could close this, is probably better if done administratively, due to these being (nominal) guidelines subject to frequent contentious tooth-gnashing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879? (initiated 27 July 2014)? See the related discussion Talk:War of the Pacific#Request to close the discussion where Mr. Stradivarius ( talk · contribs) wrote:
This RfC looks a bit contentious, so it should probably be closed by an uninvolved editor before any edit requests are carried out. (Edit requests are only for edits that already have consensus.) If it doesn't look like there will be any more discussion in the RfC, I would list it for closure at WP:ANRFC (although it seems to be a bit backlogged at the moment). Also, Keysanger, Darkness Shines has a point about the walls-o'-text; you'll probably find that you can persuade more people if you keep your posts shorter. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:West End Avenue#RfC: Merger with Eleventh Avenue (Manhattan)? (initiated 31 July 2014)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:West End Avenue#Merger with 11th Avenue (Manhattan) in your close. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada#RFC on official names versus common names (initiated 21 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should WP:PPAP continue to require the usage of official names rather than common names as the titles for Canadian political parties?" Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing merger discussion at Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Suggested merge. It involves merging Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) into that article. The "invasion" article has been filled with controversy since it started, and hence I think it is appropriate to request an uninvolved neutral party to close the discussion and assess consensus when the time comes (in a few days). If you're interested, it would be much appreciated. For reference, I'll also provide a link to this deletion discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 04:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
This RM has dragged on long enough, has no consensus whatsoever, and needs to be closed. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ralph Drollinger#RfC: How much emphasis to place on Capitol Ministries? (initiated 2 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
This article has been subject to disputed editing over how much space to devote to Capitol Ministries – see this revision vs the current. We need to gain consensus on how much detail to include, so all comments invited. I won't structure this yet as I have no idea..am only trying to admin this.
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Surnames by culture? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Long discussion, open for over 30 days, now, requiring closure by an admin or uninvloved, experienced editor. Thanks. Begoon talk 02:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie#RFC: Should material about the New Jersey Public School system be included in the article? (initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? (initiated 9 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Years by topic? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Categories by year? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15#Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15#Category:Dates in music? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
This thread has been open since 6 September, and there have been no comments in nearly three days. Could a non-involved and neutral admin assess this thread to see if consensus has been reached, with a view to closing? Thanks – SchroCat ( talk) 11:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
AfD has run the full length of time. Can someone close this? Kingsindian ( talk) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
For some reason, this is a contentious close. When the results were 8-3, I felt there was clear consensus, but got reverted. I posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is it necessary to waste resources at WP:ANRFC for a simple close to see if I had to list here, but the lack of interest there suggests that I do.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved administrator close a few discussions that I participated in:
Thanks in advance. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 12:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus and close the conversation at Talk:September 11 attacks#RfC: Are conspiracy theories relevant to the effects chapter.3F? Thanks. Smitty121981 ( talk) 16:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox#RfC regarding ceremonial seniority position (initiated 27 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Would someone uninvolved please close this discussion? It has been open for over two weeks (and the relist occurred over one week ago). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 15:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 15:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Requested move on September 6, no new votes in over a month. 68.57.233.34 ( talk) 18:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:OpenOffice.org#RfC on the topic (initiated 10 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Shall we merge this OpenOffice.org and the Apache OpenOffice articles or is there sufficient evidence to indicate that they are separate projects?
A side issue is, is there sufficient size for each article to exist on its own?
Another side issue would be what to do with the current disambiguation page: OpenOffice.
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Renewable energy sources#RfC: Is it possible to remove biomass & biofuel from the template without damaging the credibility of wikipedia? (initiated 2 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bosnian War#RfC: Factual accuracy and use of war-related terms (initiated 2 August 2014)? The consensus appears to be against the opening poster. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Split, Croatia#Name (initiated 13 August 2014)? The RfC's opening poster wrote: "Should Italian translation of the name be written in the lead since there is a separate section Name." Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Girl Next Door (2004 film)#RfC:Is use of the .7B.7Bstory.7D.7D template appropriate for a plot summary of a fictional film? (initiated 5 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television#RFC: Format and Genre parameters (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Guideline for terminology on immigrants (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Get Rid of PROD (initiated 3 September 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Five pillars#What is this page? (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vibhabakshi (initiated 14 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neme81/sandbox (2nd nomination) (initiated 11 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Edward1967/turas (2nd nomination) (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tommynewsnetwork/sandbox (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dezidor/Simon Mol (initiated 5 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cleduc/Pligg (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 7#Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Villages in Hama merge and rename of Category:Subdistricts of Hama? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Any uninvolved user can close this. Consensus seems pretty clear to me, but I am the OP. If someone can just indicate the consensus, I can do the cleanup. Kingsindian ( talk) 10:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 13:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Should this commentary on issues be included in BLPs (initiated 16 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)#RfC: Notability of YouTubers (initiated 28 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiGoals (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Royal New Zealand Ballet (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Digital movie cameras and Category:Camcorder films? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Phases of the Moon? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block appeal for CSDarrow (initiated 18 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a merge proposal here. [2] While this was posted by GenQuest it was opened at the request of Atsme on Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#AWAITING_CONSENSUS. I would like to note that the request by Atsme was made on 30 June. On July 28 Atsme has opened a merge and delete discussion that resulted in not to merge as seen [3]. Further There is currently an open AFD [4] to delete the proposed article. Two conversations that come down to notability of the same article. I request this merge proposal be closed. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 06:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Will an administrator please assess the consensus at this proposal for a topic ban on the creation of new articles by User:Aditya soni in article space? Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic#RfC: Modern country names vs. their 1912 equivalents (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pectinidae#RfC: Splitting and joining Scallop & Pectinidae (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:WZTV#WP:NOTDIR (initiated 7 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Major change: Journalism -> Original reporting (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress (initiated 22 August 2014)?
The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator review Talk:Kiger Mustang#Request for comments on article scope for speedy close? Montanabw (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
RfC has run the full 30 days and has been delisted. Needs closing by an uninvolved editor, preferably experienced. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Constant folding#RfC: Mention string literal concatenation (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Should there be a mention of string literal concatenation (SLC) on the constant folding (CF) article or not? Concretely, proposed edit ( diff):
...
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources#RfC, IMDB on the Project Page (initiated 4 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkish presidential election, 2014#RfC: Should Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu's colour be red or blue? (initiated 21 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Used to and didn't use to (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nerdypunkkid/Dan Nainan (initiated 31 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:2829VC/Peter Chapple (initiated 22 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#SMcCandlish temporary move ban - request for narrowing clarification (initiated 13 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie#Loughner section RfC (initiated 20 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nudity (initiated 12 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References (initiated 2 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
This is probably not required at all, and I could probably close this myself, but I thought I'd play it safe and ask for someone here to come look and see if the discussion needs to continue (perhaps with broader advertising in relevant venues although I already did so, I believe, at WT:ALBUMS and WT:BEATLES). This has been going on for over six months, last edit over a month ago, and it appears there is a clear concensus at this time. Lazy Bastard Guy 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be much appreciated if some uninvolved users could help close the RfC. Thanks, Mike V • Talk 19:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This content dispute has been going on since April and the outcome will probably affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. The RfC covers two issues: 1) Does the web site Westeros.org fit the expert source criteria given at
WP:SPS and 2) is the disputed sentence non-trivial enough to include in the article regardless of how it is sourced? If you address both issues in your summary, there will (hopefully) not be anything left for the participants to fight over. Seven Eight editors have logged their responses to this RfC.
Darkfrog24 (
talk) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic responses covered. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oathkeeper/Archive 1#RfC: Blog source--usable for facts? (initiated 12 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mesrop Mashtots#RfC for wording in the lead regarding the Georgian and Albanian alphabet (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the lede contain the following phrase:
He was also, according to a number of scholars and contemporaneous Armenian sources, the creator of the Caucasian Albanian and Georgian alphabets.
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Wellons (initiated 7 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Shelley Moore Capito's maiden name was "Shelley Wellons Moore". Is "Wellons" still a middle name for her (and therefore should be included in the full name provided in the intro to her bio)?
Please consider the earlier discussion Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Middle name in your close. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Is this quote by Joni Ernst relevant for her bio? (initiated 28 August 2014)? The last comment was made 9 September 2014. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Artpop#"Manicure" vs. "MANiCURE" (initiated 26 June 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Artpop#RfC: Should a song title be listed with non-standard capitalization? (initiated 10 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox (initiated 30 August 2014)? An editor wrote: "This thread was archived by a bot. I have unarchived it. Someone should close it and judge consensus." Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republican Party (United States)#More recent progressive wing (initiated 11 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote in the subsection Talk:Republican Party (United States)#Request for comments (initiated 17 August 2014):
Should the article include the names of prominent Republicans subsequent to 1976 who have been openly critical of the GOP because they believe the Party leadership's views are too far to the right? If so, how should they be described?
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Can someone close this? Nobody has replied for some days, and the consensus is unclear. This is perhaps because I did not phrase the question precisely. Kingsindian ( talk) 11:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Would someone uninvolved please close the following:
They have all been open for weeks; each longer than a week after each relist (and the first one was opened on September 2). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
This RM has run its course, and should be closed as appropriate by an administrator. RGloucester — ☎ 16:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically? (first initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks! Rationalobserver ( talk) 17:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This RM is twenty-six days old, and needs to be closed. Please do close it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
This discussion (in particular, the proposal for a site ban) has run its course and should be closed. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 20:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
This has just about run its course and I am requesting a formal statement of intent from Sitush at the ANI (at this point he tells people to look at his talk page). So at some point I'd like a formal close. Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 15:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 06:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It's been open 2 weeks, ample time for an XFD. The discussion has largely played out. If an uninvolved admin could close this behemoth down, that'd be great. -- Jayron 32 12:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Would appreciate an administrator closing this RfC, which has expired. I also would appreciate a review of the rather large amount of tagged unsourced material in this article. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes#RfC: Inclusion of Simpsons Movie (initiated 22 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should The Simpsons Movie be included in this list of episodes?" Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 14#Category:Literature by (X) women? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 20#Category:Fish of Great Britain? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Need a close and enforcement of consensus at a deletion review (initiated 25 August 2014)? Based on the user's contributions, the user has spent a lot of time at IPhone 6. Although there is no consensus for a topic ban, would an admin let the user know about the concerns the community expressed in the discussion and give a final warning that further disruption will result in a block? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
There's been a discussion which I think needs closed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Note to closing admin, preferably by an admin experienced in judging consensus regarding a matter of BLP sourcing. If I could request that the closer looks beyond head-counting and carefully weigh strength of argument, you'll forgive me, as this has been a problem in the past. Thank you, -- John ( talk) 21:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
This RM discussions needs to be closed. No new comments have been made in the past few days. Please close it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kevin Sorbo#Ferguson Controversy (initiated 28 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ed Miliband#Judaism RFC (initiated 30 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
The lead describes Edward Miliband as the first 'Jewish leader' of the Labour party. Miliband is ethnically Jewish, but not Jewish in the religious sense of the word; the infobox describes him as an atheist. Should this section of the lead be clarified to say Miliband is an ethnic Jew, rather than a religious Jew, so as not to suggest incorrectly that Miliband follows Judaism?
Option 1: Keep as it is. Option 2: Specify that Miliband is ethnically Jewish, not religiously Jewish.
Option 3: Remove from the lead altogether.
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario#Splitting of this category (initiated 21 August 2014)? See Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario#RFC: A wider handling of the situation (initiated 29 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Proposal: We agree on a minimum size: any category by city and sport where we have that many entries, we allow the creation of the category. I think 100 sounds good." Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Unichef/Michael Bersell (initiated 27 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mercedesstonewall/Mason Brown (initiated 22 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:San Diego–Tijuana (initiated 17 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Smooth jazz (initiated 15 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kazi Nazrul Islam (initiated 15 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 27#Category:Software modeling tools? Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at:
Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#Getpissy (initiated 12 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks (and probable trolling) on Talk:Historicity of Jesus (initiated 27 September 2014)? Please see the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-Ban of User:Fearofreprisal (initiated 3 October 2014). If there is consensus for a topic ban, please add the topic ban to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Battleground mentality and disruptive editing by Coat of Many Colours (initiated 2 October 2014)? There is a clear consensus for "endorse block". Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvoled administrator look at this discussion? Its passed the 7 days. The lone detractor added an 30-day RFC tag to it when things started going against him (a tactic he has used in previous discussions). I believe that bot the RFC tag and the claim that the discussion should be void are both tactics to try to keep a template on a technicality rather than to have the appropriate discussions necessary. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 20:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Needs close before the archive bot kicks in. Begoon talk 12:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 (initiated 26 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. In your close, please consider the previous discussions related to archive.is:
Here are discussions with the Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC closer:
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Will am administrator please assess the consensus on this request by User:HighKing to ease the topic ban? Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fields Medal/Archive1#Table format (initiated 15 August 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Fields Medal#RFC (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2014–15 Glossop North End A.F.C. season (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Done, by Xaosflux. Drmies ( talk) 02:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Michelle Thomas/Archives/2014#Seriously? (initiated 17 September 2014)? There is a dispute about the consensus at Talk:Michelle Thomas/Archives/2014#Consensus. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Closed by User:S Marshall. -- Euryalus ( talk) 05:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:OpenOffice.org#Second RfC, this time on NPOV (initiated 31 August 2014)? Please consider the RfC close at Talk:OpenOffice.org#RfC on the topic in your close if it is relevant. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Renaming Notability (initiated 30 August 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Second Boer War#Request for comment (initiated 19 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the nations from which foreign volunteers came be listed in the infobox?" Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Done Drmies ( talk) 02:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at:
Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion doesn't have be closed soon. However, in case that the discussion has become stale, I need an extremely neutral person. Moreover, I would strongly recommend the same person who is experienced on determining consensus, but experience is optional. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
After one week discussion, we have - in response to the proposal - "that 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq be renamed and moved to 2014 Iranian intervention in Iraq" 2 people who "oppose", 1 person who "weak opposes" and 1 person who "supports." Can a neutral and uninvolved editor please consider closing this RfC? DocumentError ( talk) 08:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
This is now an WP:RM (altered as part of the agreement on the ANI you raised). The RM started on 9 October it will finish when the RM is closed by an independent editor/administrator after about seven days (around the 16 October). -- PBS ( talk) 00:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
After one week discussion, we have - in response to the question - "Should Hezbollah be included as a belligerent, including flag icon in the infobox?" 4 people who "support", 1 person who "weak supports" and 2 persons who "oppose." Can a neutral and uninvolved editor please consider closing this RfC? DocumentError ( talk) 08:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
~~~~
(name and date) or ~~~~~
been listed over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 01:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Has been relisted for over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 15:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Can a uninvolved editor close this and assess the consensus? Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
An outside uninvolved editor is needed to close this RfC. -- Green C 17:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronn Torossian#RFC: mention of commentary in lead (initiated 4 August 2014)? Please consider Talk:Ronn Torossian#Relevance of political commentary in your close. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 14#Robbery in lede RFC (initiated 2 September 2014) and Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RfC: Should article mention Brown had no (adult) criminal record? (initiated 8 September 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for both discussions. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? (initiated 9 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? If so, does this edit by JMJimmy help readers understand that ISO 8601 uses the Gregorian calender, or hinder that understanding? If the Gregorian calendar is used, is the wording as of 7 August 2014 (UT), JMJimmy's wording, or some other wording best?
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)#RfC: Is the profanity in the article relevant? (initiated 13 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
The current version of the article uses very coarse language in the section dealing with social reactions to the match. The text at present is the following:
- Current Text: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several videos with titles such as 'Young Brazilians get fucked by entire German Soccer Team' were uploaded."
I propose that this section should be written in a more professional tone, and consider the following an improvement:
- Proposal: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several of these videos were transferred to their network with sexually suggestive titles."
Please let us know which of these two options are better and why.
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 September#Budweiser (initiated 9 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? (initiated 23 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
When discussing fictional characters in a real world context, is it acceptable to refer to them with gendered prounouns, such as he and she, or should they be referred to as objects?
Example:
- He is a superhero who was created by Simon and Kirby.
- The character is a superhero that was created by Simon and Kirby.
One editor recommended WP:SNOW close. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:OpenOffice.org#Requested moves (initiated 28 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:WikiProject Biography#RfC: BDP in Biography template (initiated 20 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the Biography template be adjusted to include the "bdp=" parameter?
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Not done This doesn't actually look like a RfC in need of closure so much as a discussion that people lost interest in. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/30 SW (initiated 26 August 2014)? The last comment was made 31 August 2014.
The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56 (initiated 28 July 2014)?
The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Closed by User:Beeblebrox. Jehochman Talk 12:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin please review and approve or decline this request for Oshwah. Previously commented by admin Graeme Bartlett, but still open since 26 August 2014. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 12:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The RfC template has been removed because the RfC was over 30 days old, but the discussion has not come any nearer to a consensus. There are currently eight different ways the type of government might be described, each of which is opposed by a significant number of editors, and very few of which have even a bare majority in favour. Nevertheless, some neutral closer needs to come down in favour of one of these, otherwise it will be impossible to move forward. Scolaire ( talk) 12:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#RFC Controversy about the policy section (initiated 26 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:European Conservatives and Reformists#Request for Comments (initiated 4 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "There is currently disagreement about how the lead and infobox should described the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR)." Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Miroslav Klose#RfC on faith (initiated 28 August 2014)? The discussion concerns this edit to the article. The content removed in that edit is currently in the article. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:GNU (disambiguation)#Add and delete articles? (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Proposal: Restrict use of "WMF" prefix or suffix in usernames to WMF staff (initiated 26 August 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting AWB access .28 User: OccultZone .29 (initiated 28 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Obvious agreement to merge. Bladesmulti ( talk) 13:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 01:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
This RFC/U was started on 11 September and hasn't had any new comments since 23 September.
Worldedixor (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs) has squandered his chance to resolve his issues informally with personal attacks. In the talk page a consensus was formed to have topic ban for Syrian Civil War/ISIL issues broadly construed. I'm concerned that he may come back (perhaps as a sock) and without a TBAN there won't be anything that can be done about it.~
Technophant (
talk) 23:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Here are two examples RfC/U closures: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche.
Would you add a closing statement to the RfC? The close could mention that (i) you are closing due to inactivity, (ii) your summary of the consensus regarding the editor's problematic behavior (if any), (iii) the support for a topic ban at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Worldedixor (I am basing this off Technophant's above post; I have not read the discussion), and (iv) that community topic bans cannot be enacted at RfC/U and requests should go to WP:AN or WP:ANI per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions. Cunard ( talk) 00:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche were also inactive when they were closed.
Would you consider adding a closing summary to the RfC/U? If you don't want to, then no worries, I withdraw this request. Cunard ( talk) 00:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The dispute between the certifiers and Worldedixor appears very acrimonious. I hope Technophant won't make this assertion in the future based on your evaluation of the consensus (or lack of it). Cunard ( talk) 01:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Commentary on the debate, user conduct, or ancillary matters are all inappropriate for this request page.
I, JethroBT
drop me a line
|
---|
Content following was moved to User talk:Technophant. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Creation Museum#RfC A. A. Gill (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Inclusion of future job positions in infobox, list, etc. (initiated 28 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
This dispute has to do with the appointment of Catholic bishops, but I am seeking a wider consensus, because in over three years none has been reached, and there has been no central place to discuss it exhaustively.
If there is no consensus in the discussion, perhaps the closer can offer the RfC's participants advice about how to better frame and publicize the discussion to encourage participation by more uninvolved editors. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anjem Choudary/Archive6#RfC: Anjem Choudary and Partying (initiated 26 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Obvious disagreement. 31 days gone, no one has commented. Bladesmulti ( talk) 13:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Would a fair minded, uninvolved party please assess the consensus of this survey? Further relevant discussion that preceded and provides context for the RFC can be found here. VictorD7 ( talk) 23:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
After one week discussion, we have - in response to the question - "Should the section "Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq" be included in this article?" 5 people who "support", 1 person who "opposes" and 1 person (since retired from WP) who "mildly opposes." Can a neutral and uninvolved editor please consider closing this RfC? DocumentError ( talk) 08:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It would be great if someone could sort through one or more of the following move requests related to animal names, some of which have been open since August: Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014, Talk:Anglo-Nubian#Requested moves, Talk:Flemish Giant#Requested moves, Talk:Harz Red mountain cattle#Requested move, Talk:Canadian Speckle Park#Requested moves, Talk:Corsican Cattle#Requested moves, Talk:Asturian Mountain#Requested move, Talk:Dutch Landrace#Requested moves, Talk:American Sable#Requested moves, Talk:Blue Grey#Requested moves, Talk:Danish Protest pig#Requested move, Talk:Bronze turkey#Requested move, and Talk:Buff turkey#Requested move. Help would be much appreciated. Dekimasu よ! 17:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James Randi Educational Foundation#Is info on Randi's income from a primary source allowable? (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gina Rinehart/Archives/2014#Chairman/chairwoman/chairperson (initiated 12 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Time to settle this once and for all, so we can stop this edit war. I have locked the article so you can't even add how much more money she has today, before you settle this. (Ms. Rineheart, if you don't mind, I could do with some money.) Simple: chairman or chairwoman or chairperson?
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prem Rawat#RfC on first sentence of the article (initiated 20 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Is it OK to replace the first sentence of the Prem Rawat article by "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, inspirational speaker and Ambassador for Peace." — and if so, do we need additional references for that sentence, either re-using one or more of the 138 references already in the article, or new ones suggested above on this talk page and/or in Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#'Ambassador of Peace'?
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Bot has removed RfC template [5] -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)#RfC (initiated 24 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Does New York Magazine described Jones as “America’s leading conspiracy theorist”,[14] and the Southern Poverty Law Center describes him as "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America."[15] About being labeled a "conspiracy theorist", Jones has stated that he finds himself "proud to be listed as a thought criminal against Big Brother."[14] belong in the lead of this BLP as opposed to its prior position in the body of the BLP?
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ashok Chakra Award#RfC: Correct Spelling? (initiated 24 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of extinct mammals#RfC: Inclusion criteria (initiated 15 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the inclusion criteria for this list be amended to include only extinctions occurring on or after the year 1500 CE?" Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tom Paulin#RfC (initiated 8 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Is the "Controversy" section in this BLP as of 17:00 8 Sep 2014 [8] of proper, insufficient, or excessive weight to the entire BLP? Does the section as constituted comply with WP:NPOV?
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - Controversy heading was deleted, but much of the controversy material is still there. This appears to be consistent with rough consensus. No change at this time needed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Crossover thrash#Crossover bands (initiated 22 September 2014)? Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Done - What little consensus we have is against the deletions. No change needed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity/Archive 1#Request for comments on Open Letter to Angela Merkelc (initiated 6 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eagles (band)#RFC: Genres in the infobox (initiated 5 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
*Should the infobox genre list all the genres also listed in the article, for which anyone could find a reference OR
- Should the infobox genre parameter be reduced to the most general genre, in this case rock
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - Unanimous to list only rock Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor administrator assess the consensus at
the RfC at
Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Edit War (initiated 24 September 2014)? Thanks,
Cunard (
talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Proposal to elevate Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles to guideline status. (initiated 22 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Proposal 2 re "Avoiding personal attacks" (initiated 19 September 2014)? Please consider the RfC close at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 12#Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks" in your close. This discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Done - Rough consensus against refactoring the policy. Left as is. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 October#Sex Tape (film) (initiated 16 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved individual help close this RfC? If you do not feel that the consensus is clear, it is requested that you defer the closure to a bureaucrat. Thank you, Mike V • Talk 00:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please close this - it's been open for well over a month, and is turning increasingly acrimonious. The closer might also want to consider the conduct of one particular editor with regards to WP:TWINKLEABUSE on the article itself. Cheers, Number 5 7 08:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved an experienced administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:2015 Formula One season#Common sense regarding Vergne? Thanks, Tvx1 ( talk) 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Request for uninvolved editor to close this. Thanks. -- Light show ( talk) 23:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#On the topic of "Appearance and color" and line-height (initiated 23 June 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Long-winded re-re-rehash that has gone on more than long enough. Note that the essentially identical. concurrent RM at Talk:Hit-Girl (character)#Requested move 14 August 2014 has already closed. There's no reason for parties to be allowed to kind of mutually forum-shop on this question any longer at a different page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved admin/user with some knowledge of copyright/ WP:NFCC take a look at this discussion and make a unbiased close? Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 17:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Open since 29 April. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved administrator please close this deletion discussion. This discussion was opened after a deletion review which was opened after the original deletion discussion. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 12:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved administrator please close this deletion discussion. This discussion was opened 3 days after I closed another discussion about the image. Fortunately this discussion had more participation and a good close would, regardless of outcome, likely stop the nominator from re-nominating a third time in a month. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 14:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Open for over one week, sending now to get ahead of bottleneck. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 03:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Although the editor was blocked for 3 months there is still the outstanding discussion of a topic ban. 12 supports for a topic ban (some wanting to go further), one against, one for a block. Dougweller ( talk) 13:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#RfC: Is the effect of Joran van der Sloot's murder of Stephany Flores relevant? (initiated 1 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist)#RfC: Should Fred Hiatt's quotes in this article be given special prominence over quotes from Rubin's critics? (initiated 28 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Merge text from one section of Global Warming Controversy (initiated 17 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Request for comment (initiated 20 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this Rasmussen poll be included in the article?" Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:The Edge#The Edge should be capital "T" or lower-case "t" in running prose? (initiated 26 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Donald Trump#"people associated with the Tea Party movement" (initiated 28 July 2014)? Please consider Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement in your close. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement? Please consider Talk:Donald Trump#"people associated with the Tea Party movement" in your close. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jesus#RfC: Should the term "Jesus of Galilee" be included in the lead? (initiated 25 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Persondata template be removed from articles? (initiated 20 July 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 August#Oriya language (initiated 28 August 2014)? Although the discussion has not gone on for seven days, participants have called for a speedy close as wrong venue. Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Economy of Pakistan#RfC: What should be the poverty threshold? (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities#Size again (initiated 18 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Arranged marriage#RFC - Lede, timeframe, use of historical terms (initiated 25 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road#RfC: recast vs reboot? (initiated 28 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RFC on word choice and cross-cultural sensitivity (initiated 29 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Add something about never using headlines as sources? (initiated 29 July 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC, where the proposal is:
Are headlines for newspaper articles ever usable as a reliable source for any claim where the headline claim is not found in the body of the newspaper article?
Should this content guideline state:
- Newspaper headlines are not a reliable source and should not be used
Please consider Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 43#RfC – are newspaper headlines a reliable source per se? (initiated 12 June 2014) in your close. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Should the R3 criterion (Implausible typos) be broadened? (initiated 8 August 2014)? Other than one comment made 22 August 2014 and and another made 29 August 2014, there has been little participation since 19 August 2014. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please close this. The same person (using two different IP addresses) has !voted "keep" three times, refusing to acknowledge that a record of who has contributed to the discussion is kept in the page history, claiming each is a different person. Having edit-warred to keep his three votes in place, they remain the only opinions in favour of retention against a number of policy-based deletion opinions. We are unfairly delaying the inevitable; allowing him to flog a long-dead horse. St★lwart 111 23:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Question about WP:NACD (initiated 4 August 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#RfC: Should non-admins reopen deletion discussions after an NAC? (initiated 6 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism#WikiProject Autism banners on biographical article talk pages (initiated 1 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Should the MediaWiki software be modified to include an option for specialized (such as blacklist / whitelist) blocks? (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Should the wording of CSD A7 be changed? (initiated 7 August 2014)? The last comment was made 13 August 2014. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Could an admin impliment WP:VPP#Change the name of reviewers to "Pending changes reviewer" please? The RfC has run for close to a month now, and consensus seems clear enough to me. Implimentation notes are included at [1] - please note nothing is needed on the dev side, and all needs to be implimented locally. Please let me know if you need guidence on this. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 07:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 14:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Listed for a month now, consensus (IMO) has moved to keep. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 14:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Somaly Mam#RfC: see-also link to Greg Mortenson (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pariah state#RfC: Is the List section original research? (initiated 10 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)#Article title – Request for Comments (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It started out about one person. However, the comments became more about all other band members, which confused me. I think I need assistance on consensus please. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Looking for an admin to close this. It's run for 30 days and is definitely ready for closing KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Flatlist or comma separated lists? (initiated 31 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 4#accreditation (initiated 14 July 2014)? The discussion at Talk:Creation Museum#Resolved? indicates that 22 editors participated in the discussion. Because of the discussion's complexity (one editor called it " Longest RfC discussion ever"), I believe a closure would be helpful in determining and recording the consensus. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion seemed routine at first, but a couple of late comments make it less than obvious that this should be a routine close. I.E., The first seven respondents all gave support, but the last two articulated only partial support for specific reasons that may need consideration. Discussion was opened a full week ago.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Requesting a formal close. I believe consensus on this is fairly clear-cut, but given the controversial long-term nature of the overall discussion it's probably best to have an uninvolved editor handle the assessment just to keep everything on the up and up. DonIago ( talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 August#2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (initiated 16 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Process for deleting drafts? This RFC started a few months ago, and the last comment was in June, but the discussion was never closed. Thanks! Steel1943 ( talk) 15:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism (initiated 8 July 2014) and Talk:Autism#Compromise proposal: "people who are autistic" (initiated 4 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for the 4 August discussion. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Review of Admin RFC Closure (removal of book by Koenraad Elst in Further reading section of an article) (initiated 26 August 2014) after there has been sufficient participation and sufficient time has passed? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 22:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC Talk:Of Human Feelings#Last sentence in Critical reception (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Chinese#RfC: How to display the characters (initiated 27 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this template display simplified Chinese characters first or traditional Chinese characters first?" Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2013 IRS controversy#"we need to be cautious about what we say in emails" (initiated 10 July 2014)? See the subsection Talk:2013 IRS controversy#RFC. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:LeBron James#Should the List of 40-plus point games by LeBron James be included in the "see also" section, or should it not? (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Unopposed (if low-participation) cleanup proposal has run for three months. Way long enough for objections to have been raised. While a non-admin could close this, is probably better if done administratively, due to these being (nominal) guidelines subject to frequent contentious tooth-gnashing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879? (initiated 27 July 2014)? See the related discussion Talk:War of the Pacific#Request to close the discussion where Mr. Stradivarius ( talk · contribs) wrote:
This RfC looks a bit contentious, so it should probably be closed by an uninvolved editor before any edit requests are carried out. (Edit requests are only for edits that already have consensus.) If it doesn't look like there will be any more discussion in the RfC, I would list it for closure at WP:ANRFC (although it seems to be a bit backlogged at the moment). Also, Keysanger, Darkness Shines has a point about the walls-o'-text; you'll probably find that you can persuade more people if you keep your posts shorter. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:West End Avenue#RfC: Merger with Eleventh Avenue (Manhattan)? (initiated 31 July 2014)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:West End Avenue#Merger with 11th Avenue (Manhattan) in your close. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada#RFC on official names versus common names (initiated 21 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should WP:PPAP continue to require the usage of official names rather than common names as the titles for Canadian political parties?" Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing merger discussion at Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Suggested merge. It involves merging Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) into that article. The "invasion" article has been filled with controversy since it started, and hence I think it is appropriate to request an uninvolved neutral party to close the discussion and assess consensus when the time comes (in a few days). If you're interested, it would be much appreciated. For reference, I'll also provide a link to this deletion discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 04:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
This RM has dragged on long enough, has no consensus whatsoever, and needs to be closed. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ralph Drollinger#RfC: How much emphasis to place on Capitol Ministries? (initiated 2 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
This article has been subject to disputed editing over how much space to devote to Capitol Ministries – see this revision vs the current. We need to gain consensus on how much detail to include, so all comments invited. I won't structure this yet as I have no idea..am only trying to admin this.
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Surnames by culture? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Long discussion, open for over 30 days, now, requiring closure by an admin or uninvloved, experienced editor. Thanks. Begoon talk 02:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie#RFC: Should material about the New Jersey Public School system be included in the article? (initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? (initiated 9 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Years by topic? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Categories by year? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15#Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15#Category:Dates in music? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
This thread has been open since 6 September, and there have been no comments in nearly three days. Could a non-involved and neutral admin assess this thread to see if consensus has been reached, with a view to closing? Thanks – SchroCat ( talk) 11:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
AfD has run the full length of time. Can someone close this? Kingsindian ( talk) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
For some reason, this is a contentious close. When the results were 8-3, I felt there was clear consensus, but got reverted. I posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is it necessary to waste resources at WP:ANRFC for a simple close to see if I had to list here, but the lack of interest there suggests that I do.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved administrator close a few discussions that I participated in:
Thanks in advance. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 12:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus and close the conversation at Talk:September 11 attacks#RfC: Are conspiracy theories relevant to the effects chapter.3F? Thanks. Smitty121981 ( talk) 16:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox#RfC regarding ceremonial seniority position (initiated 27 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Would someone uninvolved please close this discussion? It has been open for over two weeks (and the relist occurred over one week ago). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 15:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 15:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Requested move on September 6, no new votes in over a month. 68.57.233.34 ( talk) 18:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:OpenOffice.org#RfC on the topic (initiated 10 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Shall we merge this OpenOffice.org and the Apache OpenOffice articles or is there sufficient evidence to indicate that they are separate projects?
A side issue is, is there sufficient size for each article to exist on its own?
Another side issue would be what to do with the current disambiguation page: OpenOffice.
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Renewable energy sources#RfC: Is it possible to remove biomass & biofuel from the template without damaging the credibility of wikipedia? (initiated 2 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bosnian War#RfC: Factual accuracy and use of war-related terms (initiated 2 August 2014)? The consensus appears to be against the opening poster. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Split, Croatia#Name (initiated 13 August 2014)? The RfC's opening poster wrote: "Should Italian translation of the name be written in the lead since there is a separate section Name." Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Girl Next Door (2004 film)#RfC:Is use of the .7B.7Bstory.7D.7D template appropriate for a plot summary of a fictional film? (initiated 5 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television#RFC: Format and Genre parameters (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Guideline for terminology on immigrants (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Get Rid of PROD (initiated 3 September 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Five pillars#What is this page? (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vibhabakshi (initiated 14 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neme81/sandbox (2nd nomination) (initiated 11 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Edward1967/turas (2nd nomination) (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tommynewsnetwork/sandbox (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dezidor/Simon Mol (initiated 5 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cleduc/Pligg (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 7#Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Villages in Hama merge and rename of Category:Subdistricts of Hama? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Any uninvolved user can close this. Consensus seems pretty clear to me, but I am the OP. If someone can just indicate the consensus, I can do the cleanup. Kingsindian ( talk) 10:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 13:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Should this commentary on issues be included in BLPs (initiated 16 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)#RfC: Notability of YouTubers (initiated 28 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiGoals (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Royal New Zealand Ballet (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Digital movie cameras and Category:Camcorder films? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Phases of the Moon? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block appeal for CSDarrow (initiated 18 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a merge proposal here. [2] While this was posted by GenQuest it was opened at the request of Atsme on Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#AWAITING_CONSENSUS. I would like to note that the request by Atsme was made on 30 June. On July 28 Atsme has opened a merge and delete discussion that resulted in not to merge as seen [3]. Further There is currently an open AFD [4] to delete the proposed article. Two conversations that come down to notability of the same article. I request this merge proposal be closed. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 06:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Will an administrator please assess the consensus at this proposal for a topic ban on the creation of new articles by User:Aditya soni in article space? Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic#RfC: Modern country names vs. their 1912 equivalents (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pectinidae#RfC: Splitting and joining Scallop & Pectinidae (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:WZTV#WP:NOTDIR (initiated 7 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Major change: Journalism -> Original reporting (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress (initiated 22 August 2014)?
The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator review Talk:Kiger Mustang#Request for comments on article scope for speedy close? Montanabw (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
RfC has run the full 30 days and has been delisted. Needs closing by an uninvolved editor, preferably experienced. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Constant folding#RfC: Mention string literal concatenation (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Should there be a mention of string literal concatenation (SLC) on the constant folding (CF) article or not? Concretely, proposed edit ( diff):
...
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources#RfC, IMDB on the Project Page (initiated 4 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkish presidential election, 2014#RfC: Should Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu's colour be red or blue? (initiated 21 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Used to and didn't use to (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nerdypunkkid/Dan Nainan (initiated 31 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:2829VC/Peter Chapple (initiated 22 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#SMcCandlish temporary move ban - request for narrowing clarification (initiated 13 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie#Loughner section RfC (initiated 20 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nudity (initiated 12 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References (initiated 2 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
This is probably not required at all, and I could probably close this myself, but I thought I'd play it safe and ask for someone here to come look and see if the discussion needs to continue (perhaps with broader advertising in relevant venues although I already did so, I believe, at WT:ALBUMS and WT:BEATLES). This has been going on for over six months, last edit over a month ago, and it appears there is a clear concensus at this time. Lazy Bastard Guy 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be much appreciated if some uninvolved users could help close the RfC. Thanks, Mike V • Talk 19:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This content dispute has been going on since April and the outcome will probably affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. The RfC covers two issues: 1) Does the web site Westeros.org fit the expert source criteria given at
WP:SPS and 2) is the disputed sentence non-trivial enough to include in the article regardless of how it is sourced? If you address both issues in your summary, there will (hopefully) not be anything left for the participants to fight over. Seven Eight editors have logged their responses to this RfC.
Darkfrog24 (
talk) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic responses covered. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oathkeeper/Archive 1#RfC: Blog source--usable for facts? (initiated 12 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mesrop Mashtots#RfC for wording in the lead regarding the Georgian and Albanian alphabet (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the lede contain the following phrase:
He was also, according to a number of scholars and contemporaneous Armenian sources, the creator of the Caucasian Albanian and Georgian alphabets.
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Wellons (initiated 7 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Shelley Moore Capito's maiden name was "Shelley Wellons Moore". Is "Wellons" still a middle name for her (and therefore should be included in the full name provided in the intro to her bio)?
Please consider the earlier discussion Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Middle name in your close. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Is this quote by Joni Ernst relevant for her bio? (initiated 28 August 2014)? The last comment was made 9 September 2014. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Artpop#"Manicure" vs. "MANiCURE" (initiated 26 June 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Artpop#RfC: Should a song title be listed with non-standard capitalization? (initiated 10 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox (initiated 30 August 2014)? An editor wrote: "This thread was archived by a bot. I have unarchived it. Someone should close it and judge consensus." Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republican Party (United States)#More recent progressive wing (initiated 11 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote in the subsection Talk:Republican Party (United States)#Request for comments (initiated 17 August 2014):
Should the article include the names of prominent Republicans subsequent to 1976 who have been openly critical of the GOP because they believe the Party leadership's views are too far to the right? If so, how should they be described?
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Can someone close this? Nobody has replied for some days, and the consensus is unclear. This is perhaps because I did not phrase the question precisely. Kingsindian ( talk) 11:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Would someone uninvolved please close the following:
They have all been open for weeks; each longer than a week after each relist (and the first one was opened on September 2). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
This RM has run its course, and should be closed as appropriate by an administrator. RGloucester — ☎ 16:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically? (first initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks! Rationalobserver ( talk) 17:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This RM is twenty-six days old, and needs to be closed. Please do close it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
This discussion (in particular, the proposal for a site ban) has run its course and should be closed. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 20:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
This has just about run its course and I am requesting a formal statement of intent from Sitush at the ANI (at this point he tells people to look at his talk page). So at some point I'd like a formal close. Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 15:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 06:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It's been open 2 weeks, ample time for an XFD. The discussion has largely played out. If an uninvolved admin could close this behemoth down, that'd be great. -- Jayron 32 12:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Would appreciate an administrator closing this RfC, which has expired. I also would appreciate a review of the rather large amount of tagged unsourced material in this article. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes#RfC: Inclusion of Simpsons Movie (initiated 22 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should The Simpsons Movie be included in this list of episodes?" Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 14#Category:Literature by (X) women? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 20#Category:Fish of Great Britain? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Need a close and enforcement of consensus at a deletion review (initiated 25 August 2014)? Based on the user's contributions, the user has spent a lot of time at IPhone 6. Although there is no consensus for a topic ban, would an admin let the user know about the concerns the community expressed in the discussion and give a final warning that further disruption will result in a block? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
There's been a discussion which I think needs closed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Note to closing admin, preferably by an admin experienced in judging consensus regarding a matter of BLP sourcing. If I could request that the closer looks beyond head-counting and carefully weigh strength of argument, you'll forgive me, as this has been a problem in the past. Thank you, -- John ( talk) 21:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
This RM discussions needs to be closed. No new comments have been made in the past few days. Please close it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kevin Sorbo#Ferguson Controversy (initiated 28 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ed Miliband#Judaism RFC (initiated 30 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
The lead describes Edward Miliband as the first 'Jewish leader' of the Labour party. Miliband is ethnically Jewish, but not Jewish in the religious sense of the word; the infobox describes him as an atheist. Should this section of the lead be clarified to say Miliband is an ethnic Jew, rather than a religious Jew, so as not to suggest incorrectly that Miliband follows Judaism?
Option 1: Keep as it is. Option 2: Specify that Miliband is ethnically Jewish, not religiously Jewish.
Option 3: Remove from the lead altogether.
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario#Splitting of this category (initiated 21 August 2014)? See Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario#RFC: A wider handling of the situation (initiated 29 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Proposal: We agree on a minimum size: any category by city and sport where we have that many entries, we allow the creation of the category. I think 100 sounds good." Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Unichef/Michael Bersell (initiated 27 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mercedesstonewall/Mason Brown (initiated 22 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:San Diego–Tijuana (initiated 17 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Smooth jazz (initiated 15 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kazi Nazrul Islam (initiated 15 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 27#Category:Software modeling tools? Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at:
Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#Getpissy (initiated 12 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks (and probable trolling) on Talk:Historicity of Jesus (initiated 27 September 2014)? Please see the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-Ban of User:Fearofreprisal (initiated 3 October 2014). If there is consensus for a topic ban, please add the topic ban to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Battleground mentality and disruptive editing by Coat of Many Colours (initiated 2 October 2014)? There is a clear consensus for "endorse block". Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvoled administrator look at this discussion? Its passed the 7 days. The lone detractor added an 30-day RFC tag to it when things started going against him (a tactic he has used in previous discussions). I believe that bot the RFC tag and the claim that the discussion should be void are both tactics to try to keep a template on a technicality rather than to have the appropriate discussions necessary. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 20:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Needs close before the archive bot kicks in. Begoon talk 12:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 (initiated 26 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. In your close, please consider the previous discussions related to archive.is:
Here are discussions with the Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC closer:
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Will am administrator please assess the consensus on this request by User:HighKing to ease the topic ban? Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fields Medal/Archive1#Table format (initiated 15 August 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Fields Medal#RFC (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2014–15 Glossop North End A.F.C. season (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Done, by Xaosflux. Drmies ( talk) 02:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Michelle Thomas/Archives/2014#Seriously? (initiated 17 September 2014)? There is a dispute about the consensus at Talk:Michelle Thomas/Archives/2014#Consensus. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Closed by User:S Marshall. -- Euryalus ( talk) 05:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:OpenOffice.org#Second RfC, this time on NPOV (initiated 31 August 2014)? Please consider the RfC close at Talk:OpenOffice.org#RfC on the topic in your close if it is relevant. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Renaming Notability (initiated 30 August 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Second Boer War#Request for comment (initiated 19 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the nations from which foreign volunteers came be listed in the infobox?" Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Done Drmies ( talk) 02:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at:
Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion doesn't have be closed soon. However, in case that the discussion has become stale, I need an extremely neutral person. Moreover, I would strongly recommend the same person who is experienced on determining consensus, but experience is optional. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
After one week discussion, we have - in response to the proposal - "that 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq be renamed and moved to 2014 Iranian intervention in Iraq" 2 people who "oppose", 1 person who "weak opposes" and 1 person who "supports." Can a neutral and uninvolved editor please consider closing this RfC? DocumentError ( talk) 08:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
This is now an WP:RM (altered as part of the agreement on the ANI you raised). The RM started on 9 October it will finish when the RM is closed by an independent editor/administrator after about seven days (around the 16 October). -- PBS ( talk) 00:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
After one week discussion, we have - in response to the question - "Should Hezbollah be included as a belligerent, including flag icon in the infobox?" 4 people who "support", 1 person who "weak supports" and 2 persons who "oppose." Can a neutral and uninvolved editor please consider closing this RfC? DocumentError ( talk) 08:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
~~~~
(name and date) or ~~~~~
been listed over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 01:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Has been relisted for over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 15:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Can a uninvolved editor close this and assess the consensus? Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
An outside uninvolved editor is needed to close this RfC. -- Green C 17:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronn Torossian#RFC: mention of commentary in lead (initiated 4 August 2014)? Please consider Talk:Ronn Torossian#Relevance of political commentary in your close. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 14#Robbery in lede RFC (initiated 2 September 2014) and Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RfC: Should article mention Brown had no (adult) criminal record? (initiated 8 September 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for both discussions. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? (initiated 9 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? If so, does this edit by JMJimmy help readers understand that ISO 8601 uses the Gregorian calender, or hinder that understanding? If the Gregorian calendar is used, is the wording as of 7 August 2014 (UT), JMJimmy's wording, or some other wording best?
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)#RfC: Is the profanity in the article relevant? (initiated 13 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
The current version of the article uses very coarse language in the section dealing with social reactions to the match. The text at present is the following:
- Current Text: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several videos with titles such as 'Young Brazilians get fucked by entire German Soccer Team' were uploaded."
I propose that this section should be written in a more professional tone, and consider the following an improvement:
- Proposal: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several of these videos were transferred to their network with sexually suggestive titles."
Please let us know which of these two options are better and why.
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 September#Budweiser (initiated 9 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? (initiated 23 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
When discussing fictional characters in a real world context, is it acceptable to refer to them with gendered prounouns, such as he and she, or should they be referred to as objects?
Example:
- He is a superhero who was created by Simon and Kirby.
- The character is a superhero that was created by Simon and Kirby.
One editor recommended WP:SNOW close. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:OpenOffice.org#Requested moves (initiated 28 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:WikiProject Biography#RfC: BDP in Biography template (initiated 20 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the Biography template be adjusted to include the "bdp=" parameter?
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Not done This doesn't actually look like a RfC in need of closure so much as a discussion that people lost interest in. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/30 SW (initiated 26 August 2014)? The last comment was made 31 August 2014.
The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56 (initiated 28 July 2014)?
The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Closed by User:Beeblebrox. Jehochman Talk 12:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin please review and approve or decline this request for Oshwah. Previously commented by admin Graeme Bartlett, but still open since 26 August 2014. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 12:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The RfC template has been removed because the RfC was over 30 days old, but the discussion has not come any nearer to a consensus. There are currently eight different ways the type of government might be described, each of which is opposed by a significant number of editors, and very few of which have even a bare majority in favour. Nevertheless, some neutral closer needs to come down in favour of one of these, otherwise it will be impossible to move forward. Scolaire ( talk) 12:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#RFC Controversy about the policy section (initiated 26 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:European Conservatives and Reformists#Request for Comments (initiated 4 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "There is currently disagreement about how the lead and infobox should described the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR)." Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Miroslav Klose#RfC on faith (initiated 28 August 2014)? The discussion concerns this edit to the article. The content removed in that edit is currently in the article. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:GNU (disambiguation)#Add and delete articles? (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Proposal: Restrict use of "WMF" prefix or suffix in usernames to WMF staff (initiated 26 August 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting AWB access .28 User: OccultZone .29 (initiated 28 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Obvious agreement to merge. Bladesmulti ( talk) 13:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar ( talk) 01:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
This RFC/U was started on 11 September and hasn't had any new comments since 23 September.
Worldedixor (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs) has squandered his chance to resolve his issues informally with personal attacks. In the talk page a consensus was formed to have topic ban for Syrian Civil War/ISIL issues broadly construed. I'm concerned that he may come back (perhaps as a sock) and without a TBAN there won't be anything that can be done about it.~
Technophant (
talk) 23:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Here are two examples RfC/U closures: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche.
Would you add a closing statement to the RfC? The close could mention that (i) you are closing due to inactivity, (ii) your summary of the consensus regarding the editor's problematic behavior (if any), (iii) the support for a topic ban at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Worldedixor (I am basing this off Technophant's above post; I have not read the discussion), and (iv) that community topic bans cannot be enacted at RfC/U and requests should go to WP:AN or WP:ANI per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions. Cunard ( talk) 00:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche were also inactive when they were closed.
Would you consider adding a closing summary to the RfC/U? If you don't want to, then no worries, I withdraw this request. Cunard ( talk) 00:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The dispute between the certifiers and Worldedixor appears very acrimonious. I hope Technophant won't make this assertion in the future based on your evaluation of the consensus (or lack of it). Cunard ( talk) 01:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Commentary on the debate, user conduct, or ancillary matters are all inappropriate for this request page.
I, JethroBT
drop me a line
|
---|
Content following was moved to User talk:Technophant. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Creation Museum#RfC A. A. Gill (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Inclusion of future job positions in infobox, list, etc. (initiated 28 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
This dispute has to do with the appointment of Catholic bishops, but I am seeking a wider consensus, because in over three years none has been reached, and there has been no central place to discuss it exhaustively.
If there is no consensus in the discussion, perhaps the closer can offer the RfC's participants advice about how to better frame and publicize the discussion to encourage participation by more uninvolved editors. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anjem Choudary/Archive6#RfC: Anjem Choudary and Partying (initiated 26 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Obvious disagreement. 31 days gone, no one has commented. Bladesmulti ( talk) 13:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Would a fair minded, uninvolved party please assess the consensus of this survey? Further relevant discussion that preceded and provides context for the RFC can be found here. VictorD7 ( talk) 23:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
After one week discussion, we have - in response to the question - "Should the section "Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq" be included in this article?" 5 people who "support", 1 person who "opposes" and 1 person (since retired from WP) who "mildly opposes." Can a neutral and uninvolved editor please consider closing this RfC? DocumentError ( talk) 08:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It would be great if someone could sort through one or more of the following move requests related to animal names, some of which have been open since August: Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014, Talk:Anglo-Nubian#Requested moves, Talk:Flemish Giant#Requested moves, Talk:Harz Red mountain cattle#Requested move, Talk:Canadian Speckle Park#Requested moves, Talk:Corsican Cattle#Requested moves, Talk:Asturian Mountain#Requested move, Talk:Dutch Landrace#Requested moves, Talk:American Sable#Requested moves, Talk:Blue Grey#Requested moves, Talk:Danish Protest pig#Requested move, Talk:Bronze turkey#Requested move, and Talk:Buff turkey#Requested move. Help would be much appreciated. Dekimasu よ! 17:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James Randi Educational Foundation#Is info on Randi's income from a primary source allowable? (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gina Rinehart/Archives/2014#Chairman/chairwoman/chairperson (initiated 12 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Time to settle this once and for all, so we can stop this edit war. I have locked the article so you can't even add how much more money she has today, before you settle this. (Ms. Rineheart, if you don't mind, I could do with some money.) Simple: chairman or chairwoman or chairperson?
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prem Rawat#RfC on first sentence of the article (initiated 20 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Is it OK to replace the first sentence of the Prem Rawat article by "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, inspirational speaker and Ambassador for Peace." — and if so, do we need additional references for that sentence, either re-using one or more of the 138 references already in the article, or new ones suggested above on this talk page and/or in Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#'Ambassador of Peace'?
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Bot has removed RfC template [5] -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)#RfC (initiated 24 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Does New York Magazine described Jones as “America’s leading conspiracy theorist”,[14] and the Southern Poverty Law Center describes him as "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America."[15] About being labeled a "conspiracy theorist", Jones has stated that he finds himself "proud to be listed as a thought criminal against Big Brother."[14] belong in the lead of this BLP as opposed to its prior position in the body of the BLP?
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ashok Chakra Award#RfC: Correct Spelling? (initiated 24 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of extinct mammals#RfC: Inclusion criteria (initiated 15 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the inclusion criteria for this list be amended to include only extinctions occurring on or after the year 1500 CE?" Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tom Paulin#RfC (initiated 8 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Is the "Controversy" section in this BLP as of 17:00 8 Sep 2014 [8] of proper, insufficient, or excessive weight to the entire BLP? Does the section as constituted comply with WP:NPOV?
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - Controversy heading was deleted, but much of the controversy material is still there. This appears to be consistent with rough consensus. No change at this time needed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Crossover thrash#Crossover bands (initiated 22 September 2014)? Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Done - What little consensus we have is against the deletions. No change needed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity/Archive 1#Request for comments on Open Letter to Angela Merkelc (initiated 6 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eagles (band)#RFC: Genres in the infobox (initiated 5 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
*Should the infobox genre list all the genres also listed in the article, for which anyone could find a reference OR
- Should the infobox genre parameter be reduced to the most general genre, in this case rock
Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - Unanimous to list only rock Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor administrator assess the consensus at
the RfC at
Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Edit War (initiated 24 September 2014)? Thanks,
Cunard (
talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Proposal to elevate Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles to guideline status. (initiated 22 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Proposal 2 re "Avoiding personal attacks" (initiated 19 September 2014)? Please consider the RfC close at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 12#Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks" in your close. This discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Done - Rough consensus against refactoring the policy. Left as is. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 October#Sex Tape (film) (initiated 16 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved individual help close this RfC? If you do not feel that the consensus is clear, it is requested that you defer the closure to a bureaucrat. Thank you, Mike V • Talk 00:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please close this - it's been open for well over a month, and is turning increasingly acrimonious. The closer might also want to consider the conduct of one particular editor with regards to WP:TWINKLEABUSE on the article itself. Cheers, Number 5 7 08:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved an experienced administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:2015 Formula One season#Common sense regarding Vergne? Thanks, Tvx1 ( talk) 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Request for uninvolved editor to close this. Thanks. -- Light show ( talk) 23:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)