Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:42, 24 January 2015

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32	Archive 33
Archive 34	Archive 35	Archive 36
Archive 37	Archive 38	Archive 39
Archive 40

This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcuts

The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications.

Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.

Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for closure is 30 days (opened on or before 10 May 2025); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.

Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. Be prepared to wait for someone to review the discussion. If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have.

A request for comment discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for articles for deletion and move discussions—see Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for details.

Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Close}} or {{Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.

Requests for closure

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29

I would close these, but I am closing too many of them. However, I can provide procedural help for anyone who is unfamiliar with how to close discussions and would like to help with closing. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 3845 days ago on 29 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2015 Formula One season/Archive 6#Once more

Would an experienced and uninvolved administrator please close the discussion at Talk:2015 Formula One season#Once more. It never should be the discussion it has become. Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 3837 days ago on 7 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's like three simultaneous issues, aren't there? First the issue of the source, which seems resolved. Then the issue of the alignment and now it looks like an issue with the alignment with the flag. How would it be closed? How about someone create an actual RFC format and let people comment their views in separate subheadings? And this may sound ridiculous but I say someone should actually elevate this to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Multi-column_sortable_standard or bring it to a WP:Sports-level discussion. We may as well have an actual agreed-upon formatting fight done in one place and end these bits and pieces. I still can't figure out why it's only the current season that has squabbling. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Aspromonte goat#Sources

Would an experienced editor the consensus at Talk:Aspromonte goat#Sources (Initiated 3829 days ago on 15 December 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Aspromonte goat#RFC on Italian dairy & farming industry sources (Initiated 3853 days ago on 21 November 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Aspromonte goat#RFC on citation formatting

Would an experienced editor the consensus at Talk:Aspromonte goat#RFC on citation formatting (Initiated 3853 days ago on 21 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Evacuation of East Prussia#RfC: Beevor cited forced to reverse himself

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Evacuation of East Prussia#RfC: Beevor cited forced to reverse himself (Initiated 3861 days ago on 13 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted there to ask whether this still requires closing or not. Formerip (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg#RfC: How should we color Kansas?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg#RfC: How should we color Kansas? (Initiated 3853 days ago on 21 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tibetan Buddhism#RfC: Is the section on Bon sufficient?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tibetan Buddhism#RfC: Is the section on Bon sufficient? (Initiated 3864 days ago on 10 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Shii (tock) 04:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:God the Son#RfC: Statements regarding term "God the Son" not existing in the Bible

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:God the Son#RfC: Statements regarding term "God the Son" not existing in the Bible (Initiated 3849 days ago on 25 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done—S Marshall T/C 13:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Close Review Request after overturn and reclose

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Close Review Request after overturn and reclose (Initiated 3827 days ago on 17 December 2014) after there has been sufficient discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that discussion has been sufficient already... Looks like it had to be dearchived twice... Closing it would probably be a good idea now... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was archived again. I guess there is little need to unarchive it at the moment, given that the discussion itself seems to be over, as it looks like we'll need to wait a little for the close; the closer can obviously unarchive it. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason no one has closed this yet. I'd personally rather shoot myself in the head. Just let it die. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll archive this request in the next couple of days if nobody objects (and if nobody else gets there first). Sunrise (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't archive it until it's resolved. Alsee (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM backlog

There are still 12 unclosed RM discussions from 6–10 December, 4 weeks ago; and one from November. Some of the regular closers seem to have gone on holiday. Help would be appreciated. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the backlog here is still really long - there are over 100 unclosed discussions from December. Sunrise (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 15#Welfare check

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 15#Welfare check (Initiated 3867 days ago on 7 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 16#Lightning in a tropical cyclone

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 16#Lightning in a tropical cyclone (Initiated 3855 days ago on 19 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#National Anthem Act

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#National Anthem Act (Initiated 3849 days ago on 25 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 21#!vote

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 21#!vote (Initiated 3895 days ago on 10 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5#!vote. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 21#9-24

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 21#9-24 (Initiated 3883 days ago on 22 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5#9-24. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#List of ...for Dummies books

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#List of ...for Dummies books (Initiated 3844 days ago on 30 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#Kirchner un speech

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#Kirchner un speech (Initiated 3874 days ago on 31 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#August 9 1974

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#August 9 1974 (Initiated 3845 days ago on 29 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa (Initiated 3827 days ago on 17 December 2014)? (Consensus seems clear, but I cannot close it since I am involved and since I am a non-administrator; closing this will help clear the backlog at RFD.) Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Ordering_of_sections_2

Previous RfC was closed as "no consensus". Change was made anyway. A further RfC was started to try to get a better consensus. It has been open for a more than 2 weeks. Wondering if someone could close it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is inaccurate, The previous RFC was closed no consensus for a medical order. Afterwards the article was changed to a non medical order by an admin after a discussion with consensus from the editors on hand. AlbinoFerret 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 3824 days ago on 20 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What AlbinoFerret wrote is false. The previous RfC was closed as no consensus to change the order. The change to the order was made when an editor made an edit protected request while ignoring the previous RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is false. Per the previous closing "Result: No consensus as to whether the article is primarily medical." in attempting to keep it a prominently medical order. The previous closing also stated "IMO, the way the body of the article launches straight into a discussion of the health effects related the article subject before providing the basic information about what the subject is doesn't look obviously neutral or natural." thats why it was changed. There is a section calling for the stoping of the RFC, that was hidden (collapsed), the closer should read it to fully understand whats going on. AlbinoFerret 23:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What AlbinoFerret wrote is misleading. There was no consensus to change the order per the previous RFC. No consensus means the order of the sections cannot be changed. Now AlbinoFerret claims "What it is and made of (components) before getting to health claims, these are the majority of the reliable sources."[1] That is not true. The vast majority of the sources are about the health effects. AlbinoFerret believes the safety of e-cigarettes page is a "medical page". QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure the closer will not have reading comprehension issues and understand what I wrote. The order of those sources is components first. There was consensus to change them after the closing of the previous RFC, and the edit was carried out by an admin. Yes, the "Safety of electronic cigarettes", a separate page, dealing with only medical issues, is a medical page, but thats not the page this section, or the RFC is on.AlbinoFerret 20:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done—S Marshall T/C 13:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored for archiving. ClueBot will archive it. Cunard (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name"

RFC needs closing: proposed wording and survey at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Back to the original question. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 3828 days ago on 16 December 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The RfC tag was not added until 28 December so the RfC was not open for very long and the section has not been open 30 days since the RfC tag was added, and the conversation continues with new contributors.-- PBS (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The conversation had pretty well settled down until PBS canvassed 50 users yesterday ([2]) through his alternate account PBS-AWB. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion backlog

Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at the following template discussions:

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter – (Initiated 3890 days ago on 15 October 2014)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Bq - (Initiated 3885 days ago on 20 October 2014)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Quotation – (Initiated 3884 days ago on 21 October 2014)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox Taiwan station – (Initiated 3881 days ago on 24 October 2014)

Done by Martijn Hoekstra - closed as delete. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox Election Campaign – (Initiated 3881 days ago on 24 October 2014)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox Electoral reform – (Initiated 3881 days ago on 24 October 2014)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Ctr – (Initiated 3876 days ago on 29 October 2014)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Grey line – (Initiated 3876 days ago on 29 October 2014)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Bg-c – (Initiated 3876 days ago on 29 October 2014)

Done by Jackmcbarn - closed as subst and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Bgr– (Initiated 3873 days ago on 1 November 2014)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox university faculty – (Initiated 3859 days ago on 15 November 2014)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox medical college – (Initiated 3859 days ago on 15 November 2014)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox Cambridge college - (Initiated 3845 days ago on 29 November 2014)

Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Elon Musk#Proposal 1: on Musk and PayPal

Would an uninvolved administrator please drop by to close a discussion at Talk:Elon Musk#Proposal 1: on Musk and PayPal? The discussion has been open for almost thirty days with no recent action in a couple of weeks. Thanks. N2e (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3826 days ago on 18 December 2014)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Request close of section Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Determination of what country an article relates to, and MOSNUM consequences. Little discussion for a couple of weeks. Related to general sanctions at WP:GS/UKU. Kahastok talk 10:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3813 days ago on 31 December 2014)[reply]

Ma Mati Manush

Here was a merge proposal Talk:All India Trinamool Congress#Merger proposal (Merge proposals are sometimes very disturbing, we, on Wikipedia, have no systematic procedure to close these discussions (like AFD or RM). (I am an involved editor and article creator) --Tito☸Dutta 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Titodutta: I'm not sure it really does need a formal close; the input given is too limited and is terribly stale (Initiated 4108 days ago on 11 March 2014), so I wouldn't be comfortable formally closing that in any way. You can just probably run things as they are and boldly remove the tags until the question is raised again (if ever), but it may be worth opening a request for comment so the question can be resolved properly on a more long-term basis. By the way, congratulations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 117#Proposed_technical change: show pages expanded from redirects on Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed

Needs closing so that a software change can be suggested if successful. Sam Walton (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3828 days ago on 16 December 2014)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 December#Greenbelt Station

Now that the original closer has returned from a 4-week absence and made his comments, no further delay is necessary. Several other open RMs hinge on the outcome. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3820 days ago on 24 December 2014)[reply]

It appears that the move was done in December 2014 and that this item can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bhutanese passport#rfc

Please someone close this before we drown in trolls from 4chan. Haminoon (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Osama bin Laden#RfC: The Long Standing FBI 10 Most Wanted Infobox Should Be Used for Osama bin Laden

This should be a WP:SNOWBALL close, though it's been open for 17 days. BlueSalix (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3803 days ago on 10 January 2015)[reply]

There is enough ongoing discussion here for this RfC to run its full term. A SNOW close is not appropriate. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#POV Issues Regarding Controversy Section

Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#POV Issues Regarding Controversy Section (Initiated 3834 days ago on 10 December 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RFC, where the opening poster wrote:

Since the above discussion keeps running around in circles :
The grand jury Controversy section currently* consists of 18 quotes/opinions plus the table.

Should we keep quotes, or move to a more prose style summary
If kept as quotes, should the number of quotes be reduced

Or a summary plus a small number of representative quotes

Should the table be kept, or moved into prose
* The current version may differ from the version when this RFC started.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bibi Aisha#requests for comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bibi Aisha#requests for comment (Initiated 3844 days ago on 30 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done—S Marshall T/C 13:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education#RfC: Postdoctoral research and Alumnus

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education#RfC: Postdoctoral research and Alumnus (Initiated 3838 days ago on 6 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Elizabeth Warren#RfC: What should be in this article: a short summary of United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, or a longer version?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elizabeth Warren#RfC: What should be in this article: a short summary of United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, or a longer version? (Initiated 3837 days ago on 7 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 49#PROPOSAL: the standard disambiguator for mixed martial arts practioner

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 49#PROPOSAL: the standard disambiguator for mixed martial arts practioner (Initiated 3835 days ago on 9 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her#RfC: Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for the opinion of Ben Shapiro

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her#RfC: Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for the opinion of Ben Shapiro (Initiated 3831 days ago on 13 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although the close is now being reviewed below. Apparently this one, at least, was contentious enough to need a formal close.—S Marshall T/C 01:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her#RfC: Should Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the Article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her#RfC: Should Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the Article? (Initiated 3822 days ago on 22 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rotimi Amaechi#RfC:Should the title of this page be changed to Chibuike Amaechi?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rotimi Amaechi#RfC:Should the title of this page be changed to Chibuike Amaechi? (Initiated 3823 days ago on 21 December 2014)? Please consider Talk:Rotimi Amaechi#Page move discussion in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SupremeSAT(Pvt.)#Proposed merge with SupremeSAT

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:SupremeSAT(Pvt.)#Proposed merge with SupremeSAT (Initiated 4396 days ago on 27 May 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Renault#RfC: Should we include awards lists for car models in this article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Renault#RfC: Should we include awards lists for car models in this article? (Initiated 3835 days ago on 9 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bitcoin#RfC: Summarizing the "Criminal activities" section in the lede

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bitcoin#RfC: Summarizing the "Criminal activities" section in the lede (Initiated 3823 days ago on 21 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Easy enough Shii (tock) 03:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hands up, don't shoot#summary RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hands up, don't shoot#summary RFC (Initiated 3840 days ago on 4 December 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Should we very briefly describe a WP:SUMMARY of the shooting and controversy of the evidence/witnesses to give context to the origin of these protests and the gesture the article is about. One proposed wording would be "There is conflicting evidence and witness statements regarding the circumstances of the shooting, and in particular the position of Brown's hands at the time of the shooting."

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done—S Marshall T/C 13:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the sentence that moral was a problem for Serbian forces? and Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the paragraph about the high moral of the Serbian forces in this article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the sentence that moral was a problem for Serbian forces? (Initiated 3839 days ago on 5 December 2014) and Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the paragraph about the high moral of the Serbian forces in this article? (Initiated 3839 days ago on 5 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course (Initiated 3833 days ago on 11 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Battle of Chawinda#DID the battle lead to Major Pakistani victory?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Battle of Chawinda#DID the battle lead to Major Pakistani victory? (Initiated 3827 days ago on 17 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mobile, Alabama#RfC: Flag icon for Ariel, an Israel in the occupied West Bank

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mobile, Alabama#RfC: Flag icon for Ariel, an Israel in the occupied West Bank (Initiated 3810 days ago on 3 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of literary awards#RfC: Should these four external links be included?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of literary awards#RfC: Should these four external links be included? (Initiated 3833 days ago on 11 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Objectivity/DB#RfC: Remove issues list?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Objectivity/DB#RfC: Remove issues list? (Initiated 3842 days ago on 2 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Oseltamivir#RfC: WP:WEIGHT in the Oseltamivir article given direct contradiction between Cochrane review and the consensus of medical authorities

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oseltamivir#RfC: WP:WEIGHT in the Oseltamivir article given direct contradiction between Cochrane review and the consensus of medical authorities (Initiated 3836 days ago on 8 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#RfC: Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#RfC: Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to? (Initiated 3809 days ago on 4 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Shii (tock) 04:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Euclidean algorithm#Request for comments

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Euclidean algorithm#Request for comments (Initiated 3825 days ago on 19 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at this, but I'm not sure it's wise to close it yet because there's still a featured article review in progress. I think that in this case it may be better to let the FAR fully run its course and to take its conclusions into account when closing the RfC.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/Archive 3#Request for comment on media section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/Archive 3#Request for comment on media section (Initiated 3842 days ago on 2 December 2014)? The "Media coverage" section is currently in the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#RfC: Should the lead describe the orb as a "powerful, coveted orb"?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#RfC: Should the lead describe the orb as a "powerful, coveted orb"? (Initiated 3832 days ago on 12 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Number 5 7 13:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Tenchi Muyo! characters#RfC: Should a certain fictional character be classified as omnipotent, or near omnipotent?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Tenchi Muyo! characters#RfC: Should a certain fictional character be classified as omnipotent, or near omnipotent? (Initiated 3825 days ago on 19 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hamas#RfC: "Hamas vs European Council" European Court's decision. Should the following related information be included ?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hamas#RfC: "Hamas vs European Council" European Court's decision. Should the following related information be included ? (Initiated 3823 days ago on 21 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism#RfC: Are texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts reliable secondary sources?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism#RfC: Are texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts reliable secondary sources? (Initiated 3844 days ago on 30 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today? (Initiated 3807 days ago on 6 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh (Initiated 3843 days ago on 1 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Process formalisation (RFC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Process formalisation (RFC) (Initiated 3836 days ago on 8 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done—S Marshall T/C 13:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to auto-transclude /doc subpages

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to auto-transclude /doc subpages (Initiated 3829 days ago on 15 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to include a link to the Wikipedia Adventure in the Welcome template

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to include a link to the Wikipedia Adventure in the Welcome template (Initiated 3820 days ago on 24 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox album#"Executive producers" parameter re-proposal

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox album#"Executive producers" parameter re-proposal (Initiated 3822 days ago on 22 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC on adding the following wording

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC on adding the following wording (Initiated 3845 days ago on 29 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Number 5 7 13:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mustang#Capitalization RfC

Please snow-close this RFC in which a single editor is fighting to capitalize mustang and edit warred and got the article protected; time to move on. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3796 days ago on 17 January 2015)[reply]

I don't think that's appropriate. Even if the outcome is obvious, it would be better to exhaust this step in dispute resolution properly than snow close it (and find you can't rely on this later down the track because it was closed too early). There are many reasons why a position is asserted and many ways to describe those reasons; better to let all of the comments come in first as it might resolve the dispute. As to the edit-warring, if it's just one editor who won't stop, then the editor's conduct should be at ANI so there is an interim sanction pending the outcome of the RfC. Though right now, the article's protected so there should be no issue.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back out of the protected state so that the obvious consensus can be implemented was my point. RFCs tend to stretch out for a month if not closed when the outcome becomes obvious, which is has become here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he has attracted a couple more capitalizers now, but the outcome is still clear. The waste of time is sad and pointy. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Death of Leelah Alcorn#Merge Leelah's Law

It looks like this has been sufficiently debated. An involved editor went ahead and performed the merge, but it was reverted by another involved editor. I think we need an uninvolved editor to determine consensus. St Anselm (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3801 days ago on 12 January 2015)[reply]

I've looked at this, StAnselm, and although the conclusion appears to be obvious at first glance, I think it might still be a little too early to close. Better to give it another few days, so that it's absolutely clear that everyone's had every chance to make their case; otherwise there's a risk of the close being overturned for being premature.—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards