Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

2014 entries

2014

Talk:File Allocation Table#RFC on length and splits

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:File Allocation Table#RFC on length and splits (initiated 21 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Talk:File Allocation Table/Archive 6#RFC on length and splits. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment some further discussion now at the end of Talk:File Allocation Table. ~KvnG 14:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Done and commented at article talk page. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 5#Removal of permissions for inactive indef blocked users (2014)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 5#Removal of permissions for inactive indef blocked users (2014) (initiated 14 June 2014)? Please consider the RfC at Wikipedia talk:User access levels/Archive 2#Rights of indef blocked users in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Admin to close a discussion please?

A discussion has been on going now since MARCH on a page: Talk:BBC One#Splitting and I have sent messages to other people to try and get them to respond etc, but after four months only seven people have past comment, with 80% opposing the idea. Can an admin please close the discussion, so we can move on for this? The Idea was first suggested by a user who is now banned for socks. Thanks --Crazyseiko (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Moved from AN/I. Origamite^{is out right now} 00:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Done (NAC) Bellerophon _{talk to me} 06:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 6#Template:Distinguish

This TfD about a proposal on deleting {{distinguish}} is met with almost universal opposition. With reference to WP:Snow, I believe that it is appropriate for any uninvolved admin to close this discussion. The merger part will be brought to the discussion page of the template.Forbidden User (talk)

Closed by Harej (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Template test cases notice#Requested move 24 June 2014

Requesting an administrator or other uninvolved editor to close Template talk:Template test cases notice#Requested move 24 June 2014 as there are only two editors that have commented on it, and there appears to be a consensus, but since I'm involved and this requested move has been sitting around for two weeks (twice the required one week). Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually this need to be closed by an admin, because the template is move protected. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Any uninvolved editor can close the discussion. If they close it as move, that can be requested at RPP or with a db-g6. If they close it as don't move, then no admin was needed anyways. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 11:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Jenks24 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Michel Bédard

Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Closed and deleted by Joe Decker Piguy101 (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Character notability (for full articles)#RfC: Character notability (for full articles)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Character notability (for full articles)#RfC: Character notability (for full articles) (initiated 22 May 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "What are the requirements for video game characters to be considered notable enough that they should be allowed to have their own articles? Ideally, the results will be as specific as possible as this has been argued quite hotly for a long time." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Formerip (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Yazdan

It was opened on May 20 by me and is quite a confusing discussion. Check the history of Amir Yazdan for some more understanding. Piguy101 (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

~~Strange. You started an AfD with a Keep vote? And you didn't follow WP:GTD.~~ Okay I see what happened now.--Auric talk 19:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have relisted the AfD. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User pages#Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked? (initiated 29 May 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Bishonen (talk · contribs) already has. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that was spooky. I was just coming to say the same thing... Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen's change based on the RfC has since been reverted by Bbb23. Could another user take a look with an eye to (?re-)closing the discussion and ensuring the consensus version of the page is implemented? Thanks, –xeno^talk 15:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted for procedural reasons. The closure should not be done by someone involved in the voting. The closure should be done properly by an unininvolved administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

RexxS reverted my reversion and left a message on my talk page offering to re-close the RfC reaching the same result. He said that alternatively and in a somewhat loaded fashion, "Of course, if you'd prefer to avoid procedure for procedure's sake, you could just let it go." My only question of others at this point before I respond to RexxS is whether, given the nature of the RfC, it should be closed by an administrator rather than an experienced editor (RexxS appears experienced to me, although I don't think I know him). I imagine some think I'm being a pain in the ass over this whole thing, and it may be so as I can be a pain in the ass, but by drawing this out a little longer, at least I'm meeting their expectations. While awaiting the barbs, I'm going back to my regular work, which is more satisfying and certainly less stressful than this.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of procedure, this noticeboard really isn't the right place to discuss the merits of a close. It's just for requesting closes. (I have no opinion about the RfC.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Reclosed by RexxS and "Your close is fine." from Bbb23. Cunard (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 26#History of the Utah Territory

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 26#History of the Utah Territory? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#24.56.15.29 edits to I Wear Your Shirt

Would an admin review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#24.56.15.29 edits to I Wear Your Shirt (initiated 14 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Handled by Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) and Chillum (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth II#Issue

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [[Talk:Elizabeth II#Issue] (initiated 20 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "RfC started 01:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC) ... Is there a particular reason why the Queen's children are referred to by the legal term issue, rather than children in this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Iatrogenesis

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the subsections of Talk:Iatrogenesis#Requested move Iatrogenesis → Medical harm (initiated 5 June 2014):

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Done ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:Civil Rights Museums

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:Civil Rights Museums? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, nearly every participant in the discussion is in agreement on the category's new name. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Done ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

3 RfDs from June

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 27#Doggy woggy
- Done. Jenks24 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 29#Current President of the United States
- Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 30#Child safety
- Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

These RFDs need either a closure or a relist. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 July#Yesterday (Beatles song)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 July#Yesterday (Beatles song) (initiated 4 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Many, many MfDs left

I spent an hour closing some, plenty left to go around (about 10 days' worth). Will come back to finish it off later if nobody has gotten around to it. (No need to list them ALL here, though.) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I finished July 2 through July 8 minus a few from July 6. There are still plenty to do. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done I think that I've cleaned out the backlog through right now. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: Except Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NAYEE BRAHMINS. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Good catch.

Done. TLSuda (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Salvidrim (talk · contribs) and TLSuda (talk · contribs), for reducing the 19-day backlog at MfD down to zero. Cunard (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rajesultanpur Ambedkar Nagar

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rajesultanpur Ambedkar Nagar (initiated 24 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucien86

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucien86 (initiated 25 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

29 June 2014 MfDs

Would an admin (or admins) assess the consensus at:

Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum (WP:NOQUORUM) states:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

All

Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

30 June 2014 MfDs

Would an admin (or admins) assess the consensus at:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raghava kashyap
Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EveLam27/Evelyn Lambert
Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yasarmaya
Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hloaroo/Brad Olsen
Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uefa lb/Ali Mohamad-Eid Aoun
Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Architecttylee
Relisted by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Farhanshafique
Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum (WP:NOQUORUM) states:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

1 July 2014 MfDs

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum (WP:NOQUORUM) states:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

All

Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

2 July 2014 MfDs

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nimisha sanaye/Minerals and metals trading corporation
Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Titanic1000/Rosedale Products
Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gattermeier/Terra Chocolates
Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Skhodjaev/sandbox
Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:L.H.A Kakoro
Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rowena123/GreatLittleTradingCompany
Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KremaGroup/The Krema Products Company
Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Takeouts ska
Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum (WP:NOQUORUM) states:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

3 July 2014 MfDs

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum (WP:NOQUORUM) states:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

All

Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

4 July 2014 MfDs

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum (WP:NOQUORUM) states:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

All

Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

5 July 2014 MfDs

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum (WP:NOQUORUM) states:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

All

Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

6 July 2014 MfDs

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum (WP:NOQUORUM) states:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

All

Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

7 July 2014 MfDs

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum (WP:NOQUORUM) states:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

All

Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam Warren UK

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam Warren UK (initiated 8 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

9 July 2014 MfDs

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum (WP:NOQUORUM) states:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

All

Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

10 July 2014 MfDs

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum (WP:NOQUORUM) states:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

All

Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

11 July 2014 MfDs

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum (WP:NOQUORUM) states:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

All

Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gaurrupesh

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gaurrupesh (initiated 12 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Honorary degree#Deletion of recipients of honorary degrees category

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Honorary degree#Deletion of recipients of honorary degrees category (initiated 2 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Number 5 7 19:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pahlavi dynasty#RfC: former country or royal house?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pahlavi dynasty#RfC: former country or royal house? (initiated 8 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this article use the Template:Infobox Former Country, or Template:Infobox royal house?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pahlavi dynasty#Merge proposal, bringing House of Pahlavi here

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pahlavi dynasty#Merge proposal, bringing House of Pahlavi here (initiated 20 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Israelis in India#Infobox

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Israelis in India#Infobox (initiated 16 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done I'd say that a listing here might not have been necessary though. Sunrise (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Review of RfC close requested (Progressive tax)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Review of RfC close requested (Progressive tax) (initiated 1 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Sunrise (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John Anthony Brooks#Request for Comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John Anthony Brooks#Request for Comment (initiated 17 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "At what point, if at all, should Brooks' ethnicity be mentioned in the lede (i.e. is he German-American, American, or a soccer player who played for America)? The relevant wikipedia policy is WP: OPENPARA."

Please consider the related discussion Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive202#John Anthony Brooks in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Formerip (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:East Germany#Before an edit war starts

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:East Germany#Before an edit war starts (initiated 6 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "This is call for third opinions concerning the name of the article on East Germany same has to be said about the article on West Germany. In the latter even the infobox shows flaws."

A later poster wrote: "Extensive previous discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Number 5 7 13:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:United States Senate election in Virginia, 2014#Request for comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States Senate election in Virginia, 2014#Request for comment (initiated 8 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should Robert Sarvis be included in the infobox?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Formerip (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dave Brat/Archive 1#"Brat attributed this electoral victory to God"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Dave Brat/Archive 1#"Brat attributed this electoral victory to God" (initiated 13 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There were two sections on the page with the same name (the RfC being under the second), so I made a trivial edit to the first one so the link goes to the right place. Sunrise (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Formerip (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Proposal: Only one stub template per article

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Proposal: Only one stub template per article (initiated 14 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Titoxd (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Violet (color)#New material added to lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Violet (color)#New material added to lead (initiated 14 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Number 5 7 15:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy#RfC on restoring last stable version of this article

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy#RfC on restoring last stable version of this article (initiated 6 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Number 5 7 11:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#RfC: Use of characters from the Icelandic alphabet

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#RfC: Use of characters from the Icelandic alphabet (initiated 14 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "When titling Wikipedia articles, should the Icelandic letters eth (ð) and thorn (þ) be used?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Number 5 7 11:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oscar López Rivera#RfC: How do can we describe and cite the crimes for which OLR was convicted?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oscar López Rivera#RfC: How do can we describe and cite the crimes for which OLR was convicted? (initiated 15 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Formerip (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Georgism#RfC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Georgism#RfC (initiated 29 May 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should Georgism be defined as including support for land taxes, land rents, capital land gains, pollution fees, location taxes, and fees for 'use and abuse of the land-commons' in general?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Formerip (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Georgism#RfC - are Pigovian positions etc. properly included here?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Georgism#RfC - are Pigovian positions etc. properly included here? (initiated 16 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Are the list of taxes associated with Pigovian tax and other taxes properly included under Georgism? What taxes should be directly linked to 'Georgism' in this article and using what criteria?" The participants indicated that this issue has been raised on the talk page repeatedly over the past several months, so a close to resolve the months-long dispute would be helpful. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Formerip (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Romeo and Juliet#RfC: about Arthur Brooke's and John Swan criticizing the play

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Romeo and Juliet#RfC: about Arthur Brooke's and John Swan criticizing the play (initiated 1 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Robert McClenon (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Landscape art#RFC: How should the scope of the article be presented in terms of Landscape Photography?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Landscape art#RFC: How should the scope of the article be presented in terms of Landscape Photography? (initiated 22 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Robert McClenon (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 17#RfC: Move criticism up lede? and Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 18#Proposed new lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 17#RfC: Move criticism up lede? (initiated 9 June 2014) and Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 18#Proposed new lead (initiated 18 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Formerip (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Steven Emerson#Merge and delete the IPT article and Talk:Steven Emerson#Merger RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Steven Emerson#Merge and delete the IPT article (28 June 2014) and Talk:Steven Emerson#Merger RFC (5 July 2014)? Please consider combining the two sections by making the newer section a subsection of the older one and assessing the consensus in both sections. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Sunrise (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft talk:Half-Life 3#Request for Comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Draft talk:Half-Life 3#Request for Comment (initiated 16 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Please consider the related discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 105#Half-Life 3 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Robert McClenon (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pune techie murder case#RfC: Is the hate SMS relevant for inclusion?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pune techie murder case#RfC: Is the hate SMS relevant for inclusion? (initiated 12 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Bellerophon _{talk to me} 08:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pune techie murder case#Rename article to "2014 Pune clashes"?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pune techie murder case#Rename article to "2014 Pune clashes"? (initiated 14 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Bellerophon _{talk to me} 08:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Roosh V#Sex tourist and Talk:Roosh V#RfC - Sex tourist

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Roosh V#Sex tourist (2 June 2014) and Talk:Roosh V#RfC - Sex tourist (11 June 2014)? The opening poster of the RfC wrote:

Please consider combining the two sections by making the newer section a subsection of the older one and assessing the consensus in both sections. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The second was

Closed by Robert McClenon (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The first was reviewed during the close of the second and so has also been

Closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Đurđevdan uprising#Title and scope RfC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Đurđevdan uprising#Title and scope RfC (initiated 6 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. But note that this has not been a conventional close, because I am concerned that the article may fall short of WP standards from an ethical POV. Please feel free to take a look if you want. Formerip (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mexico#RfC: What weight should be assigned to the source Lizcano 2005

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mexico#RfC: What weight should be assigned to the source Lizcano 2005 (initiated 12 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "The purpose of this RfC is to establish what weight if any should be assigned to the source "Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI" by Francisco Lizcano Fernandez, and how it should be represented." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done - No consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism#RfC: should the page note in more detail the contention around including anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anarcho-capitalism#RfC: should the page note in more detail the contention around including anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism? (initiated 7 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done - See RFC for closure results. Next step is up to editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Chris McDaniel#RFC on including material

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chris McDaniel#RFC on including material (initiated 10 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done - No consensus due to blanket nature of RFC. Create a separate RFC for any specific critical item. Also, note that article is a BLP and so is subject to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Naming of one and two digit numbers and years

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Naming of one and two digit numbers and years (initiated 21 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As it is approaching its 30th day since opening (opened on 21st June), I suppose it's the appropriate time for closure.Forbidden User (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Formerip (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles

This has gone on for months, with no consensus to change the guideline, but now proponents of that change are falsely claiming that failure to change consensus amounts somehow to a lack of consensus on what the guideline actually says and means, which is simply not true. It's time this was put to bed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been over a week since anyone commented further on this failed proposal. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

An editor has provided a handy and seemingly-to-me neutral summary of the sprawling debate there: User:Sillyfolkboy/Resources/MOS:SportsFlag. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is this considered a failed proposal? The majority of the !votes are for Support, which is to permit greater use of flags. I was looking at closing with a consensus of Weak Support. Please explain why this is a failed proposal. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like 19 supports to 18 opposes (or thereabouts - I only did a speedy count). It might be possible to tease a weak support out of that, but it doesn't look to me like it would be very easy. Formerip (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the respective strength of the arguments; I participated in the discussion, and I saw several that would not stand up to any form of scrutiny - some even misunderstood the question! Number 5 7 22:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I haven't actually read through, so I can't say. I guess I'm just making the point that it shouldn't be closed as a victory squeaked purely on numbers. On the other hand, it's not actually "failed" until it's closed. Formerip (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Done - No consensus, essentially a tie. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Is there a reason, why only the "General discussion" section was closed and the other sub-sections were completely left out. They are part of the discussion too. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Closer error corrected. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

3 TfDs

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 22#Template:Infobox Simpsons episode
Closed by Mazca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 24#Template:USCensus-2010CA
Closed by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 24#Template:Geographic reference
Closed by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

These TFDs need either a closure or a relist. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that I am closing about 95% of the TfDs right now, and it would be awesome if I could get some help :) Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Blue Army (Poland)#RfC: Is this a dubious claim

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Blue Army (Poland)#RfC: Is this a dubious claim (initiated 14 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done - Not a dubious source. May be in article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Blue Army (Poland)#RfC: Does this statement reflect its source?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Blue Army (Poland)#RfC: Does this statement reflect its source? (initiated 16 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done - See closing notes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk: Cold fusion#RFC

Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk: Cold fusion? There are two parts to the RFC? First, should cold fusion experiments be identified as often being categorized as pathological science? Second, which of the four categories defined in WP:ARBPS should be considered applicable to cold fusion? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Number 5 7 15:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:English mythology

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:English mythology? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Sandstein 20:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Discrepancy between WP:DIACRITICS and current practice

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Discrepancy between WP:DIACRITICS and current practice (initiated 15 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done - No consensus on either proposal, both of which have tired !votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VisualEditor/VisualEditor RfC 2014 part 1

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/VisualEditor RfC 2014 part 1 (initiated 7 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "This request for comment asks the community what additional changes or fixes we want WMF to make before we would consider re-enabling VisualEditor under a set of conditions that we could specify through a later RfC such as Wikipedia:VisualEditor/2014 RFC or User:Pine/drafts/VisualEditor default state 2014 part 2."

Based on the discussion's comments, it might have to be closed as "no consensus", "insufficient participation", or "this RFC is premature". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've asked if this needs closing. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Dank (talk · contribs), at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/VisualEditor RfC 2014 part 1, an editor wrote: "I don't think this RfC has started yet, so I'm confused as to how it could be closed… You're responding to the discussion about whether to start an RfC."

I requested a close for the sparsely attended RfC mainly for archival purposes so there is a result for the opening poster's proposal. Even if the result is "no consensus", "insufficient participation", or "this RFC is premature".

If the discussion is paused right now but will be continued at a later time, then a closure might not be helpful.

Feel free to make the final determination on whether this should be closed. If you believe a closure would not be helpful right now, I withdraw this closure request. Cunard (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to the participants; anyone who was watchlisting the page saw my offer. No responses yet. - Dank (push to talk) 10:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No responses yet, so they're probably not looking for a closing process. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Category talk:Antisemitism#RFC on purging individuals and groups

Could a brave administrator have a look at this RfC, initiated June 23, and try to evaluate the consensus? I'll warn you that the close is likely to be controversial based on comments to date. Discussion fizzled out about a week ago, but then LegoBot came by to remove the expired RfC tag and got some users up in arms again. Ivanvector (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Sandstein 20:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Spring, Texas shooting

Not sure if this is the right place, but I was sent here to see if an admin could look at this article that was put up for deletion over a week ago. Benbuff91 20:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Done--Mackensen (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 insurgency in Donbass

Would an administrator please assess consensus and close the requested move discussion at Talk:2014 insurgency in Donbass? RGloucester — ☎ 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 insurgency in Donbass#Renaming request is the link. VandVictory (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Jenks24 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre

This has been open for 10 days with no current activity. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Department of English at the University of Groningen

Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Randykitty (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC - are newspaper headlines a reliable source per se?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC - are newspaper headlines a reliable source per se? (initiated 12 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 43#RfC - are newspaper headlines a reliable source per se?. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Done - Not possible to determine consensus because the formatting of the RFC did not encourage !votes, and there were no !votes, only discussion. Closed without consensus. Recommend a new RFC with Survey and Threaded Discussion sections. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted with the same reason as the one just bellow. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC - Do we need a new section on state owned and/or operated news agencies? Are they excluded from RS?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC - Do we need a new section on state owned and/or operated news agencies? Are they excluded from RS? (initiated 20 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done - Not possible to determine consensus without a Survey section for !votes and a separate Threaded Discussion section, and there were no !votes. Closed without consensus. Another editor is advised to open a new RFC on the same topic with a Survey section. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Closure was reverted with the edit summary "If you can't figure out the result when there are no "!votes" labeled for you, then please don't try to close it.". Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest the revert was valid. To close the discussion as "no consensus" is one thing, but to do so on the reasoning that consensus does not exist because the RfC lacks !votes is fallacious. Extensive discussion is, by definition, the most effective way to determine consensus. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 10:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Voice actors

This discussion has been open for over a month now well within the span for an RfC. I am requesting closure here as it involves a guideline related discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2 × 2 real matrices#Split-quaternion

Resolved

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2 × 2 real matrices#Split-quaternion (Merger proposal initiated February 2014).Rgdboer (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion closed. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 14#Time to revisit schools?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 14#Time to revisit schools? (initiated 13 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I am considering putting up a proposal to require that all schools and colleges be subject to the exact same standards as any other topic, specifically significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to be considered notable." Is there a consensus that such a proposal would be a good one to submit to the community in a more widely advertised RfC?

There is a draft proposal in the subsection Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Draft Proposal. Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No action - Neither of these sections has been formally discussed in a way that permits consensus to be evaluated. If there is a desire to change the current guidelines, a properly formatted RFC should be published. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Per the revert mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 13#Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC - Do we need a new section on state owned and/or operated news agencies? Are they excluded from RS? and the comment here, I think this is a properly formatted RfC where consensus can be assessed.

My main reason for requesting a closure is to resolve the question: "Is there a consensus that such a proposal would be a good one to submit to the community in a more widely advertised RfC?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed per S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:DIPLOMAT: notability of ambassadors

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:DIPLOMAT: notability of ambassadors (initiated 2 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Thompson (Aryan Brotherhood)#Issues with large amount of references to the article today

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Thompson (Aryan Brotherhood)#Issues with large amount of references to the article today (initiated 16 June 2014)? See Talk:Michael Thompson (Aryan Brotherhood)#RfC (initiated 16 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "A large amount of references were added to the article this am today. What is anyone's opinion on whether or not any reader can actually get to any of these materials to read and check the references that are cited inline in the article?"

If there is consensus to remove the references, please consider doing so. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. But I didn't remove anything. I see that as being the job of editors active on the article. Formerip (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That is fine with me. Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Daniel Amen#RFC: List of journal articles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Daniel Amen#RFC: List of journal articles (initiated 2 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should a list of journal articles written by Daniel Amen be used in his biography?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Formerip (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Academi#Request for comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Academi#Request for comment (initiated 29 May 2014)? The previous close was reverted here. The previous closure request is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 12#Talk:Academi#Request for comment on merging of Blackwater article into. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Sunrise (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll#RfC: Should we include the entry on Muslim Conquests?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll#RfC: Should we include the entry on Muslim Conquests? (initiated 5 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Formerip (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Germany#New RfC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Germany#New RfC (initiated 21 June 2014)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:Germany/Archive 21#RfC: Image to illustrate the Third Reich period in the main Germany article in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan#RfC on Iraqi Kurdistan autonomy level (second proposal)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan#RfC on Iraqi Kurdistan autonomy level (second proposal) (initiated 1 July 2014)? Please consider Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan/Archive 1#RfC on Iraqi Kurdistan level of autonomy in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Formerip (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sunburn#Image

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sunburn#Image (initiated 27 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this be our lead image?" (Not safe for work note: The discussion contains nudity.) Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Is listing a person's agency in the infobox relevant?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Is listing a person's agency in the infobox relevant? (initiated 25 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:YesAllWomen#Requests for comment; Gender breakdown

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:YesAllWomen#Requests for comment; Gender breakdown (initiated 20 June 2014)? Please consider Talk:YesAllWomen/Archive 2#Dispute regarding providing context to the killings, Talk:YesAllWomen/Archive 3#New rfc, and Talk:YesAllWomen/Archive 3#Reopening old RfC in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 47#RfC: When COMMONNAME depends on country, culture, or demography

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 47#RfC: When COMMONNAME depends on country, culture, or demography (initiated 27 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done by S Marshall. Number 5 7 10:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC: Should we consider a rewording of the intro paragraph of WP:NSPORTS?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC: Should we consider a rewording of the intro paragraph of WP:NSPORTS? (initiated 29 June 2014)? Please consider the earlier discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Objections in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:UK Independence Party#RFC On Membership figures

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:UK Independence Party#RFC On Membership figures (initiated 22 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong to article lower-quality statuses

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong to article lower-quality statuses (initiated 21 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Go Phightins! (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 30#Category:Works set on ships

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 30#Category:Works set on ships? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Vegaswikian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Frozen (2013 film)#Requested move

Met universal opposition within hours. Please close per WP:SNOW.Forbidden User (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Geographic reference#RfC: Should Template:Geographic reference be split into separate templates for each source?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Geographic reference#RfC: Should Template:Geographic reference be split into separate templates for each source? (initiated 16 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should Template:Geographic reference remain as a single template or should each of the separate citations be put into a separate template?"

Please consider Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 24#Template:Geographic reference in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No action Template was deleted following a TFD, and thus this discussion has gone with it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Great power#India

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Great power#India (initiated 28 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Damaged Lady#RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Damaged Lady#RFC (initiated 26 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Duloxetine#Prescrire????

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Duloxetine#Prescrire???? (initiated 28 June 2014)? Please see the subsection Talk:Duloxetine#RfC Is this content suitable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Other Probes

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Other Probes (initiated 30 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the following content be included in this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Sunrise (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Merge discussion

Initiated on 20 July 2014, it has met universal opposition. Please close per WP:SNOW.Forbidden User (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Policy contradiction between WP:Preserve and WP:BAN's WP:BMB

Please assess the consensus in this RfC initiated on 15 July 2014, in which there have been no input for over a week.Forbidden User (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sabancı family#RFC: Inclusion of a paragraph in article

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sabancı family#RFC: Inclusion of a paragraph in article (initiated 29 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the following paragraph be included in this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Formerip (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 128#Time for the semi-annual enlarging of thumbnail images

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 128#Time for the semi-annual enlarging of thumbnail images (initiated 14 July 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 July#2014 Israel–Gaza conflict

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 July#2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (initiated 25 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistently making contentious actions during discussion

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistently making contentious actions during discussion (initiated 24 July 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cunard: Can you link directly to it please? I can't find it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by User:CambridgeBayWeather on 9 August. It appears that the section header must have been changed since the original filing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed links in this section. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More! and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive849#Close review: Conduct unbecoming of an administrator

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More! (initiated 30 July 2014) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive849#Close review: Conduct unbecoming of an administrator (initiated 30 July 2014) regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct unbecoming of an administrator? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

First discussion

Closed by Go Phightins! (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Second

Closed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Proposal to allow links once per section

A two-issue proposal, about what it says, and about re-scoping the "See also" sections of articles. Needs consensus determination on these two issues separately, and formal closure. Author of the proposal attempted to close it, but that's procedurally wrong, and the pseudo-close was dismissive and unhelpful. Needs a neutral examination. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#can non-admins impose community bans?

Please assess the consensus in this RfC initiated on 17 July 2014, with the last input on 1 August 2014.Forbidden User (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bliss (image)#RfC: Inclusion of external links

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bliss (image)#RfC: Inclusion of external links (initiated 16 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No action The discussion has come to a natural end and parties have dispersed. Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the last comments in the section was "...Currently, vote count is 3-3, tie." An uninvolved editor is needed to determine if one side has a stronger policy-based position or if the result is no consensus.

In a recent RfC close, FormerIP (talk · contribs) closed Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 5#RFC:Ambiguous birth date for William? in favor of one side even though the vote count was also split 3–3. Cunard (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Songs written by Samuel Barnes (songwriter)

Would an uninvolved admin assess this, please? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Done – Fayenatic London 21:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Shock Doctrine#RfC regarding synopsis

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Shock Doctrine#RfC regarding synopsis (initiated 20 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done by User:S Marshall. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kozyrev mirror#Request not to re-direct this article to Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kozyrev mirror#Request not to re-direct this article to Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev (initiated 2 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done by User:S Marshall - Conclusion was to reverse the direct / unmerge. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person#change or add tag line for "Criminal status" to "Judicial status" (or "propose name" status) for BLP

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#change or add tag line for "Criminal status" to "Judicial status" (or "propose name" status) for BLP (initiated 8 July 2014)? See the subsection Template talk:Infobox person#RfC on proposed change to have context specific tag for "criminal status" (initiated 11 July 2014)? The last comment was made 23 July 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'? (initiated 30 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done - Consensus was for the renaming. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

~~Lede of article needs to be revised to be consistent with renaming. OPs are being requested to revise lede in support of rename.~~ Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Closer rewrote lede and moved article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?

An anon started an RfC on 14 July on Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?. I'm hoping we can keep the RfC brief, for obvious reasons. Would an uninvolved editor take a look and decide whether it can be closed yet? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest this RfC should not yet be closed. There has been additional discussion since you placed the above message, including a number of posts from today. Discussion points are valid and on track; I would be inclined to let this RfC continue to run. I don't particularly understand what the "obvious reasons" are to curtail this RfC? Unless, you are referring to the potential distress the discussion might cause to the family; in which case, there is no evidence any such distress exists. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The RFC was opened on 14 July 2014. The 30-day period is still running. Is there a reason why it is important to close it early? It doesn't appear to be a WP:SNOW case, and if it were, it would not have to be here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church#Proposal to limit the scope of this article

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church#Proposal to limit the scope of this article (initiated 23 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done -- llywrch (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in .5BYEAR.5D

Please close and measure the consensus. Thanks, ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 09:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Mdann52 (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 27#Match Word Cup

This review has been open for 12 days, with no activity for the past 3 days. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Proposal to topic ban AlanS from New Page Patrol

This has been going for some time. User who is subject of proposal has suggested it might be time to close. Might be good if it was closed before it gets archived. I have commented in the discussion. Begoon ^talk 16:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears that a consensus is forming for the ban. Could an admin look at this? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Just another edit to call an admin to this. It's at the top of the AN/I thread and will be archived soon. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed. Go Phightins! 03:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Distinguish#Request for comment – 14 July 2014

30 day period passed. Could an admin assess the consensus and close this RfC?Forbidden User (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Done (NAC, but none of the possible outcomes required admin tools to implement, so an admin close was not required.) Sunrise (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Unreferenced lists and porn stars RFC

Discussion appears to have mostly stopped. While its only been open 12 days, its generated plenty of discussion (250k) for a closer to review, and there have been no new comments in over 2 days. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cory Gardner#RfC: Is it relevant to include Gardner's track record on specific issues?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cory Gardner#RfC: Is it relevant to include Gardner's track record on specific issues? (initiated 13 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Deaf culture#First person presentation

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deaf culture#First person presentation (initiated 7 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done by S Marshall (talk · contribs). TLSuda (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Synagogues face mass AfDs

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Synagogues face mass AfDs (initiated 13 July 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#RfC: Should there be mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done by S Marshall (talk · contribs). TLSuda (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#RfC: What should the guideline be regarding the scope of templates?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#RfC: What should the guideline be regarding the scope of templates? (initiated 18 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done TLSuda (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Policy#Suggested wording change

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Policy#Suggested wording change (initiated 23 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cem Özdemir#Secular Islam

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cem Özdemir#Secular Islam (initiated 7 June 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Cem Özdemir#RFC on the issue (initiated 11 July 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by S Marshall (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:West Highland White Terrier#An editor has requested comments

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:West Highland White Terrier#An editor has requested comments (initiated 7 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Since this article is assessed as Good Article, we are more restictive with pictures we add. Should this photograph be added to article or not?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done TLSuda (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Complete template list

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Complete template list (initiated August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done TLSuda (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cfleetwood/n2n

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cfleetwood/n2n (initiated August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done by Spartaz (talk · contribs). TLSuda (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Woodstock Wolf/sandbox/Bill Nye

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Woodstock Wolf/sandbox/Bill Nye (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done by Xaosflux (talk · contribs). TLSuda (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Batman in film#Split into multiple articles

Been running since November. Opinion is pretty evenly split but an editor is insisting that one side has a consensus by virtue of a majority and proceeding to act accoridngly. Could do with formal closure at this stage. Betty Logan (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done by S Marshall (talk · contribs). TLSuda (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:Drosera by synonymy

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:Drosera by synonymy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Good Olfactory (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Concision razor#Userfy without redirect

Unopposed (except by author) suggestion to userfy-without-redirect another of this editor's failed policy-change proposals masquerading as WP:ESSAYs (cf. userspacing of User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle, and I think there've been others; maybe User:Born2cycle/Rationalized JDLI started that way). Userspacing proposed in April, and re-proposed recently after revisions made the page even more of a mess (see Wikipedia talk:Concision razor#A fresh look). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This will not be formally closed, since it has instead been taken to MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Help talk:Archiving a talk page#Size of Archives

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Archiving a talk page#Size of Archives (initiated 24 June 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Frozen (2013 film)#Should the New York screening hosted by Disney and The Cinema Society be included in the article?

Could an uninvolved admin close this unactive but rather heated discussion. I made an attempt to close it but received a threat to AN/I instead. Thank you.Forbidden User (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 4#Sports history

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 4#Sports history? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done by Od Mishehu. Number 5 7 16:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings#RfC: proposed amendments to the lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings#RfC: proposed amendments to the lead (initiated 16 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

not done. The RfC had four points and each was marked "done" by a reviewing editor. Perhaps, as per WP:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, you could contact the editor who said "done". – S. Rich (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed the RfC by noting the editor's changes. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election#RfC: Should the Green Party, along with other parties be included in the table of polling results

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election#RfC: Should the Green Party, along with other parties be included in the table of polling results (initiated 9 July 2014)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election#Consensus Vote in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done by S Marshall. Number 5 7 15:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 4#Category:Germany external link citation templates

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 4#Category:Germany external link citation templates? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done by Good Olfactory. Number 5 7 15:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 4#Category:Specific-source templates by country

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 4#Category:Specific-source templates by country? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done by Good Olfactory. Number 5 7 15:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 6#Category:Calvinist theology

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 6#Category:Calvinist theology? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done by Good Olfactory. Number 5 7 15:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/July 2014#Does MOS:JAPAN require disambiguation for cities that aren't disambiguated from anything?

~~This RfC was archived last month without being closed. Could an admin assess the consensus and close it? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)~~

You are asking about an archived discussion. Note that per Help:Archiving a talk page#Continuing discussions the thread is "immutable". Would it be a good precedent to go to the page and announce a consensus there? I don't think that is what you want. (So basically the old RFC is "closed" with no consensus.) Perhaps you could re-start the discussion, with a link on the current thread to the archived discussion to alert editors about the archive. With these remarks in mind, this request should be closed as a N not done. – S. Rich (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I confused two threads on related topics. The RfC hasn't been archived. I'm requesting the correct RfC below. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Excessive topic-ban

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Excessive topic-ban (initiated 10 August 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:SITEBAN proposal (initiated 12 August 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Go Phightins! 23:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:"Heroes" (David Bowie song)#RFC: Quoting "Heroes"

Anyone well-versed in English grammar, please evaluate whether there is a consensus at Talk:"Heroes" (David Bowie song) and close if possible. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Done rather amusingly by User:S Marshall. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mario Götze#Gotze religion

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mario Götze#Gotze religion (initiated 15 July 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Mario Götze#RfC: Should a mention of the subject's faith be included or is it unnecessary?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Formerip (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC: should the article Paul Singer (businessman) mention that his company has been called a vulture fund?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC: should the article Paul Singer (businessman) mention that his company has been called a vulture fund? (initiated 16 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done – S. Rich (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Autism spectrum#Autistic-first language versus person-first language

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Autism spectrum#Autistic-first language versus person-first language (initiated 7 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

The discussion referred to in the opening post is Talk:Autism/Archive 15#"Autistic person" versus "person with autism". Please also review the related discussion Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism (initiated 8 July 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

For the RfC close from the first discussion, my additional comment here may be helpful. Sunrise (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Yaris678 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#RfC: Can this book(BJP vis-a-vis Hindu Resurgence) on BJP by Koenraad Elst be added to further reading section of BJP article or is this book considered fringe theory?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#RfC: Can this book(BJP vis-a-vis Hindu Resurgence) on BJP by Koenraad Elst be added to further reading section of BJP article or is this book considered fringe theory? (initiated 11 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Yaris678 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Appealing block conditions

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Appealing block conditions (initiated 15 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by DangerousPanda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 7#Should the speculated image of McCann made by a forensic artist be removed from the infobox and placed within the main article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 7#Should the speculated image of McCann made by a forensic artist be removed from the infobox and placed within the main article? (initiated 14 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

not done. Recommend you set up a new discussion on the talk page, link to the archive, see if there is interest, and then if no further commentary arises ask for a closure here. See: Help:Archiving a talk page#Continuing discussions. (In the alternative, you can WP:BB and do what you think is best on the article.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussions do not become uncloseable after they are archived. Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Help guidance says to start a new thread to reopen a discussion and Help says that archived discussions are immutable. (The discussion topic might be closeable, but an archived discussion thread should not be changed.) So the best course of action is to start a new thread, link it to the archive, announce the closure, then hat {{archive top}} the thread with a time-stamp. Later the bot will come by and archive the new thread. But what is the point? Some discussions just die out. In which case the practical result is "no consensus". – S. Rich (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Unarchived section to Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Should the speculated image of McCann made by a forensic artist be removed from the infobox and placed within the main article?. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC is now

Closed. – S. Rich (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera (initiated 10 August 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Propose topic bans. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive850#Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Unarchived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera to allow for further discussion and closure by an admin. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cunard:. Now back in the archive at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera without closure. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Tedman

Can someone please close this before any further damage is done? It was re-listed by User:Rcsprinter123 and I don't think he was wrong to have done so but there are really no opinions in favour of keeping this beyond the article creator who is getting more and more hostile and desperate and two suspected sock/meat puppets with non-policy arguments. The re-listing has had the (entirely unintentional, I'm sure) affect of simply delaying the inevitable and dragging things out for the proponent. At this point we're just propping up his dead horse so he can continue to flog it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: The consensus is pretty clear for delete, but I am not an admin and not sure if this falls under the category of non-admin closure allowed. Kingsindian (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian, if you don't have the tools then you can't functionally close it as "delete" and then delete the article. Best to just leave this one to an admin. Cheers, St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WT:Verifiability#RfC, Insertion of a refimprove tag

This will be with us for awhile, so a close will be helpful going forward. Unscintillating (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Unscintillating:: I don't see any specific policy outcomes for that discussion, as the specific question (3RR exemption) is trivially answered but the broader question (who has the burden of justifying a tag) is not really something one could change by fiat as a result of the RfC, even if the discussion itself pointed us in a specific direction. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 62#RfC, Insertion of a refimprove tag. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Archiving reverted. IMO, the consensus here is that maintenance tags are article improvements just like any other edit, and are subject to WP:BRD. There was also an interesting point that editors may choose to start the D in WP:BRD before the R. Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies (initiated 9 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Spring, Texas shooting#RfC: Should details about the alleged perpetrator be removed?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Spring, Texas shooting#RfC: Should details about the alleged perpetrator be removed? (initiated 11 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done - No consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move (initiated 4 July 2014)? Please consider Talk:Free! (anime)#Move and Talk:Free! (anime)#Bold rename following opposition to it in the RM above in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#RfC: Mandatory disambiguation for Japanese places?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#RfC: Mandatory disambiguation for Japanese places? (initiated 13 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should MOS:JAPAN continue to require disambiguation for unique place names?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Could an admin assess the consensus and close the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#RfC: Mandatory disambiguation for Japanese places? ? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Done - consensus is not to require so-called pre-emptive disambiguation. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Should we issue warnings to users for their username who have never edited?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Should we issue warnings to users for their username who have never edited? (initiated 11 July 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done - Rough consensus to warn users who have not edited so that they can change username before editing. By the way, bot hasn't yet pulled RFC tag that is more than a month old. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 4#Human shields

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 4#Human shields (initiated 18 July 2014)? See the subsection Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 4#Request for comments. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You are asking about an archived discussion. Well, per Help:Archiving a talk page#Continuing discussions the thread is "immutable". Would it be a good precedent to go to the page and announce a consensus there? I don't think that is what you have in mind. In fact there is a current discussion going on at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Human shields. (So basically the old RFC is "closed" with no consensus.) Perhaps you could provide a link on the current thread to the archived discussion to alert editors about the archive. With these remarks in mind, this request should be closed as a N not done. – S. Rich (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for a discussion to be archived before someone gets around to closing it - it wouldn't set a precedent. The discussion does appear to have moved on in this case though, so a formal close might or might not be useful. Sunrise (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What you say about archiving is true, and that talk page has a 5 day shut down. The precedent that I'd like to avoid is going back and forth between current and archived discussions, particularly in light of the "mutable" characterization we see in Help. When there is not a new thread open, the better practice is to open a new thread, link to the old archive page, and then ask for closure. – S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussions do not become uncloseable after they are archived. Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Help guidance says to start a new thread to reopen a discussion and Help says that archived discussions are immutable. (The discussion topic might be closeable, but an archived discussion thread should not be changed.) So the best course of action is to start a new thread, link it to the archive, announce the closure, then hat {{archive top}} the thread with a time-stamp. Later the bot will come by and archive the new thread. But what is the point? Some discussions just die out. In which case the practical result is "no consensus". – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Unarchived section to Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Human shields. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Formerip (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Category:Uncategorized good articles

Admin needed to conclude discussion and implement renaming. Consensus is to use "Category:Good articles without topic parameter". – S. Rich (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the close is an easy one but I lack the experience in renaming categories so I will leave this to someone else. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: If you close it, than I can handle the rest. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed, pinged you in my closure. Thanks for helping. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Almost done, but [[Category:Uncategorized good articles|{{PAGENAME}}]] should be replaced with [[Category:Good articles without topic parameter|{{PAGENAME}}]], which needs the admin/template editor bit. (I don't have either). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Armbrust: Wanna tell me what and where to do it, or make a template-edit-request? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Oops.

It's {{Article history}}. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Done ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of sovereign states#Poll

Could an uninvolved user please take a look at this discussion? There are four separate questions up for debate: whether three proposed entities meet the inclusion criteria and lastly whether the criteria should be changed to allow for them to be listed. This has been a long running dispute, so I believe it would beneficial if the consensus was formaly assessed and discussion closed by an uninvolved editor. TDL (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Number 5 7 15:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)