Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 10

 2014 entries 

NFCR discussion needing closure 1

 * 1) Non-free content review
 * ✅ -- Тимофей Лее Суда . 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ -- Тимофей Лее Суда . 15:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 23:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ -- Тимофей Лее Суда . 15:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 15:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 15:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ De728631 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ De728631 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * is the current list. Werieth (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 32
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 32 (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A close would not help now. The text that was under discussion has changed significantly since the RfC was started. Some of the issues under discussion appear to be unresolved but if people are concerned about that it would be easier to start a new discussion that takes the current text as a starting point. To cap it all, the RfC is in a talk-page archive. Yaris678 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Knockout (violent game)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKnockout_%28violent_game%29&diff=589567704&oldid=589182237 the RfC] at Talk:Knockout (violent game) (initiated 8 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer (initiated 27 December 2013)? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion which says: "Should Wikipedia provide a more prominent disclaimer in general, or on health and medical content?" Please close the discussion after 26 January 2013. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 North American cold wave
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 North American cold wave (initiated 9 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have just closed it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Muhmmadsabir and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Muhmmadsabir/UserProfileIntro
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Muhmmadsabir and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Muhmmadsabir/UserProfileIntro (both initiated 16 January 2014)? Because the discussions are related, I recommend that the same closer assess the consensus in both discussions to ensure consistency. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 22:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Firewall (physics)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Firewall (physics) Thanks, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by Armbrust The Homunculus 22:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 2
Some of the discussions at Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 2 are over one month old and should be relisted or dispositioned. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have just closed the last one. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN
Because so many WP:BLP talk page discussions are about this issue over and over again, and variations on it have been brought to WP:Reliable Sources Noticebaord repeatedly - and because the articles all are under Austrian economics/General sanctions - it would be helpful if an experienced admin could close this WP:RSN thread. There seems to be a fairly clear, but less than perfect consensus. It was opened January 9th and the last comments were January 12, so if it's not ready for a close now, by the time someone has time to look at it, it should be ripe. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Comment A bot archived it to Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought bot closure meant that what I see as a clear consensus could be put in the article, but the editor reverted my changes per the WP:RSN, so I guess we'll need an official close on this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The bot didn't "close" the discussion, it just archived it due to lack of activity. In either case though, I wouldn't expect that to have an effect on someone involved being able to close the discussion. However if someone objected to your close on the grounds that you did not correctly interpret the consensus, then yes you would need to come here I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification. And he asked me to come here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be clear. You had already come here.
 * I merely stated that the bot archiving was irrelevant and that the bot's action did not put you in a position to declare that your view had prevailed in the discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO  talk  19:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At this diff Jan. 21 User:SPECIFICO wrote: If you still wish to pursue this, please request on AN that the archiving be undone, and await Admin close. There's no point to any involved editor trying to infer "consensus" -- thanks. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 11:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have closed the discussion here. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mayer Brown
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mayer Brown (initiated 12 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An RFC I opened expired on or around 11 Janurary, and a bot removed the template. I would appreciate it if an admin could close it as they see fit given the participation. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closing. WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS, WP:RS, WP:BLP Gaijin42 (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Futanari
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Futanari (initiated 19 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this image be present it the lede of this article, or even in the article at all?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ closing in the body, not in the lede Gaijin42 (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Numbers (TV series)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Numbers (TV series) (initiated 14 January 2013)? Requested moves generally runs for seven days, though this discussion is listed as an RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm sorry that it took so long to talk to you about this; I just learned about this ANI.


 * I'm the one who called for the RfC. I did so because one editor has changed the title of the show unilaterally without discussing it with the editors who work on the page first, and, since the change, that editor has been arguing that s/he did the right thing in regards to MOS:TM.  In addition, someone did attempt to revert the article's title to the correct title twice, but the offending editor re-reverted the change both times.


 * The title of the article had been relatively stable from the time the article was created until the change; the only time that the article's title did change was when editors decided that the title should be in sentence case and not all caps. As you can see here, most of the editors made the argument that the name should not have been changed because the use of Numb3rs was much more prevalent in reliable sources than the less common Numbers.  I was pretty sure that most of the page's editors would have liked a third pair of eyes on the situation, so I filed the RfC.  (The editor who we have been arguing with did suggest that we use a WP:RM to change the article's title back, but I could see that the relatively recent move from Numb3rs to Numbers (TV series) was already controversial in itself.)


 * Honestly, I did not expect it to turn the RfC into another debate between that editor and me. (A full disclosure here, that editor and I have also been arguing the issue over at MOS:TM.)


 * If I have done anything wrong in the eyes of the administrators, I'm sorry. If not, what is the next step? SciGal (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . You have done nothing wrong. You listed a move discussion as an RfC rather than at Requested moves. Most move discussions are listed at WP:RM, but it is acceptable to list them as RfCs. There were related discussions about this at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive764 (August 2012) and Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 39 (October 2012), and there was no consensus that RfC couldn't also be used to move pages. I think it is better to list move requests under WP:RM, where the RM tag is removed only when the discussion is closed, whereas many discussions listed under RfC are unclosed after the RfC tag is removed by the bot. To answer your question, the next step is to wait for an admin to close the requested moves discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To the closer, please consider Talk:Numbers (TV series) in your close. Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above wall-of-text should really be hatted. AN is not the place for SciGal to argue her case, especially not with crap like: "moved back to the correct title", and "the editor we are arguing with", which falsely implies that only one editor is against her proposed title. There's another falsehood concerning the initial move, which was done without controversy. The editor who moved it has not taken part in the discussion, nor has he been asked to. Finally, I object to Cunard's request to the closer. Cunard moved the section in question into the RfC to make it more visible, so it's quite obvious that the closer will consider it. I ask that someone hat everything here (this thread included) except the initial request for closure. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The current RfC was started at january 14, so it has not been 30 days yet. I do have my conclusion ready thouhg, so if it should be closed now, just give the word. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 15:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Any objections? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ I closed this as Numbers (Tv Series). but didn't see Edokter's comment until after. If someone wants to second guess my close, I won't object. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Question Did you also considered the "Threaded discussion" section in your closure? If yes, than please fix the placement of the archiving templates. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did. placement. fixed. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 6
Seems uncontroversial after 18 days of running. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . Thanks! --BDD (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nutation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nutation (initiated 21 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ clear support for option 1. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Baader-Meinhof phenomenon
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (initiated 28 December 2013)? The question posed was: "Should this page stay at its current name, move to Frequency illusion or be split into two separate topics at each name?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Closed by me. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Smoke testing
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Smoke testing (initiated 31 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote: Should this article be converted into a disambiguation page and split into the following articles:
 * Smoke testing                   -- A disambiguation page
 * Smoke testing (mechanical) -- describing the use of smoke to test pipes
 * Smoke testing (electronics) -- looking for smoke on first power up
 * Smoke testing (software)   -- testing of major functions before formal testing
 * Smoke testing (theatre)    -- testing smoke machines

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ disambiguate. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:German acupuncture trials
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:German acupuncture trials (initiated 31 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ less detail. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:In a World...
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:In a World... (initiated 29 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "To be clear the content at issue is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_a_World...&diff=588239834&oldid=588235205 this]". The participants have stated whether they support or oppose inclusion of the content. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Not include. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles (initiated 1 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed by me. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, London
Has gone over the 7 days. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy (initiated 14 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Option 4. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox album
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox album (initiated 21 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed by me as "no consensus". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:High Speed 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:High Speed 2 (initiated 20 January 2014)? According to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHigh_Speed_2&diff=593112061&oldid=592958375 this comment by an involved editor], "Opinions from outside editors were overwhelmingly in support of the metric unit precedence." The disputed change was first made [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&diff=583444530&oldid=583235088 on 26 November 2013]. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&dir=prev&offset=20140101022501091155&limit=6&action=history An edit war followed on 1 January 2014.] There was a lengthy discussion beginning 1 January 2014 about units at Talk:High Speed 2. I ask the closing editor to combine the two related "Units" section and assess the consensus in both discussions. Otherwise, I ask that the closer mention in the close that he or she considered the previous discussion. Given the robust discussion and the edit war, a formal close by an uninvolved editor would be helpful in recording the consensus. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed already by involved party. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Main
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Main (initiated 16 January 2013)? Please see the subsection Template talk:Main (initiated 15 January 2014)? The opening poster of the RfC wrote: "Should the main tag also be used at the top of articles for purpose #2 (as discussed above -- to tag an article that is not the main article for its topic e.g. see history of Bitcoin ) or should it remain recommend only for its well-established purpose #1 to point to the main article only in summary sections elsewhere?" The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ #3 but not a lot of participation, so should not be considered a hard precedent. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:David Ogden Stiers/Archives/2014
Can someone here close many a discussion? --George Ho (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ no consensus for inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Photography
This proposal for merge has been open for three years, and there's a clear consensus. I know I can close it myself, but I don't know what's done in those cases. © Tb hotch  ™ (en-2.5). 19:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can close it, you should. It is my understanding of WP:MERGE that the merge discussion closer does not have to actually perform the merge.  Any editor can perform the merge, based on the consensus of the discussion which would be interpreted through a close.  If you follow the steps on WP:MERGE to close the discussion, it will add the closed merge discussion to the Category:All articles to be merged, or you can ping one of the original merge discussion initiators to see if they would like to do it. -- Тимофей Лее <font color="#333399">Суда .  17:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed by me. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

NFCR discussion needing closure 2

 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ -- <font color="#336699">Тимофей <font color="#335599">Лее <font color="#333399">Суда . —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 6 February 2014‎
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ -- <font color="#336699">Тимофей <font color="#335599">Лее <font color="#333399">Суда . —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 6 February 2014‎
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ -- <font color="#336699">Тимофей <font color="#335599">Лее <font color="#333399">Суда . 23:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ -- <font color="#336699">Тимофей <font color="#335599">Лее <font color="#333399">Суда . 23:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 23:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 23:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 23:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ -- <font color="#336699">Тимофей <font color="#335599">Лее <font color="#333399">Суда . 11:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ by -- <font color="#336699">Тимофей <font color="#335599">Лее <font color="#333399">Суда .  11:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ by -- <font color="#336699">Тимофей <font color="#335599">Лее <font color="#333399">Суда .  15:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * is the current list. Werieth (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dream House for Medically Fragile Children
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Discussion stalled 7 days ago and consensus appears to have been reached. A CFD discussion on the related Category:Chairmen of the Federal Reserve awaits the outcome of the RM discussion. Please can the closer of the RM leave a note at the CFD? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 16:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Any volunteers to close the CFD? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, cheers! bd2412  T 18:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/World Urban Campaign
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Two Redirects for Discussion

 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 5
 * Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014 January 14

Both the above discussions are long overdue for closure and the regular RfD closers have participated so cannot do it. Attention from another admin would be much appreciated. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Files_for_deletion/2013_November_24
It would be nice, if someone could close. Thanks. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Eva Haller
Has been 9 days since the last re-listing, and there has been a lot of input since then! Three keep votes, one of them strong. Can somebody please help close this article out? Many thanks. United191 (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as "no consensus" by User:Slakr. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/United Kingdom Drug Discovery Consortium
requires closure or relisting, has run the 7 days. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as "delete" by User:Slakr. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Estonia–Malaysia relations
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as "delete" by User:Slakr. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Li (surname)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Li (surname) (initiated 19 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "There have been various discussions over the last few months both on this talk page and at Talk:Li (surname meaning 'profit') Archive 1, Archive 2 (and probably elsewhere, I can't remember!), resulting in a recent AfD, and subsequent overturning of the 'merge' decision to 'no censensus' at the deletion review. We seem to be at a stalemate situation, with one group of editors fully supporting a merge, and another dead against it, and to be frank, it has turned a little nasty. We really need wider views on this, but I hope any editor wishing to contribute here will take the time to read the previous history and fully take into account the points raised by both sides in the past.  It may be a good idea for us editors who have been most active in the previous discussions to take minimal part in this one, in order to have some fresh opinions given, and to avoid the same spiral we have been going down. Points that should be addressed should consider whether there is a necessity to have separate articles, or whether a single umbrella article will do, and if multiple articles are deemed necessary, how these should be named with regard to the use of Chinese characters in the article titles. Thanks!" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed informally by Zanhe after a bot removed the RfC tag as expired. I guess that means no consensus. Either way, with no more edits in over two weeks, the issue seems to have settled. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Zanhe only placed the discussion between a archive top and archive bottom template, but a summary of the discussion is still needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's assessment of the situation. A closure is beneficial because the issue keeps resurfacing as demonstrated by the multiple discussions (see Armbrust's comment [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAdministrators'_noticeboard%2FRequests_for_closure&diff=591145995&oldid=591144527 here]). Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I got a message on my talk page asking me to summarize the outcome of this RFC. As Armbrust noted above, I merely added archive templates several weeks after the RfC became inactive and closed by a bot. As I was an active participant in the discussion, I don't think it's appropriate for me to summarize the outcome, but consensus is quite clear for anyone who cares to read the discussion and the votes. -Zanhe (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the conclusion is pretty evident, close seems to be sufficient but by all means if there is a non-involved closing word then that would be okay. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment requested at the talk page, that "someone summarize the results of this RfC for posterity". And I agree with them. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of this one today. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah...now I see all the pleasure reading I have ahead of me on Lí, Lǐ and Lì, and various incantations of WP:OSE. I'll need the evening, so expect a summary tomorrow instead of today. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line 21:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Władysław Sikorski's death controversy
Open since 18 January. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 14:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Eitarō Ozawa
Involves 36 pages. Open since 13 January. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 00:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/BAYADA Home Health Care
relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Psychedelic rock
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Psychedelic rock (initiated 3 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I propose that acid rock be merged into psychedelic rock." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 14:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Martin Landau
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Martin Landau (initiated 9 August 2012; see Talk:Martin Landau, which was initiated 16 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 14:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Phil Robertson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Phil Robertson (initiated 7 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 14:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Đorđe Pelinović
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Đorđe Pelinović (initiated 9 January 2014)? See also Talk:Đorđe Pelinović (initiated 9 January 2014), which received very little input. The opening poster wrote: "This move goes against most common name in English: A simple research in google books will yield nothing for Pelinovic. Most common name is Gjergj Pelini, but I will agree to a move to George Pellinus, which is what Robert Elsie calls him in his historical dictionary." From Requested moves/Closing instructions: However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title. If no recent title has been stable, then the article should be moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

Note that according to Consensus:

In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

Therefore, if a page has been moved from a longstanding title, and it is not possible to move the page back to its original title during the discussion, the default title will be the title prior to the contested move. If the closer concludes that no consensus has been reached, I recommend moving the article back to its stable title. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 13:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Electrical telegraph
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electrical telegraph (initiated 4 January 2014)? The question posed was: "A large amount of material has been copied from Cooke and Wheatstone telegraph into Electrical telegraph and Telegraphy articles. Do editors think that this material should be summarized down in these articles or should it be left in full?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 13:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Category talk:Political television series
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Political television series (initiated 4 January 2014)? If there is a consensus, please implement the consensus. If there is no consensus, perhaps the discussion can be moved to Categories for discussion, which discusses category renames. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 13:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Saturday Night Live
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Saturday Night Live (initiated 7 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "There is a debate over whether the addition of Sasheer Zamata to the cast is notable enough for the main article." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 12:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gone with the Wind (film) (initiated 10 January 2014)? Please consider Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108 and consider including a comment that you reviewed that discussion in your close. The question posed was: "Do you support or oppose the inclusion of a link to Portal:Film in the United States in this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (initiated 14 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 12:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259 (initiated 14 February 2014)? Banning policy states: "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 11:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Melissa Scott (pastor)
There are multiple issues. I reverted a relist as I think prolonging this discussion is disruptive. There was never a deletion argument. Topic is litigious. Nude photos of the topic are part of the discussion, and editors are using f-bombs. The topic is a pastor and editors are using profanity. Note that I requested review at WP:BLP for the f-bombs and profanity. The bots are still having trouble a week after the initial opening of the AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 23:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:24.24.157.243/Hikvision
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:24.24.157.243/Hikvision (initiated 6 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zooxoxoxo/The Weeknd
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zooxoxoxo/The Weeknd (initiated 5 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pameliadarden
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pameliadarden (initiated 4 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kal'krit
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kal'krit (initiated 31 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Qetesha
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Qetesha (initiated 27 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Outrage (2009 film)
RFC discussion must be closed. --George Ho (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed. Gigs (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/John Whitmer Historical Association
relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Britain's Got Talent
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Britain's Got Talent (initiated 6 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ItsLauraK
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ItsLauraK (initiated 31 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sabinebalve
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sabinebalve (initiated 28 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AHRtbA
/Commplaint]]=== Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AHRtbA==/Commplaint (initiated 28 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Will in China/Rabelais
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Will in China/Rabelais (initiated 27 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Maximus kron
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Maximus kron (initiated 27 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. MER-C 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Billkirwin
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Billkirwin (initiated 25 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Katyn massacre
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKatyn_massacre&diff=594864883&oldid=590898089 the RfC] at Talk:Katyn massacre (initiated 11 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should Anti-Katyń be merged into Katyn massacre?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Murder of Sayano Horimoto
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, Muscat
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Manchester capitalism
Open since 2 January. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am reviewing this now, and have asked previous discussion participants to weigh in on the later-added proposal. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed by User:Xoloz on 19 Feb as move to Manchester Liberalism. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Palestinian freedom of movement
Open since 7 January. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed by User:Xoloz on 19 Feb as "not moved". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Silesian language
Very lengthy discussion, open since 22 January. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Closed 19 Feb by User:BDD as "no consensus". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2008 Skåne County earthquake (2nd nomination)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Death of Lisa Harnum
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 16:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ayub Karimi
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ayub Karimi (initiated 5 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleted. MER-C 10:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Infoamal
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Infoamal (initiated 27 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleted. MER-C 10:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sergomen1/Virtonomics1
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sergomen1/Virtonomics1 (initiated 4 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfawal/sandbox
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfawal/sandbox (initiated 27 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Amit Shekhar
has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board (initiated 29 October 2013)? There were several participants and some previous discussions, linked there. The strength of consensus is relevant to a dispute, see Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 86. Thanks, Narrow Feint (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Specifically, does this discussion constitute a clear consensus for the removal of "UK" from placenames (infoboxes etc) across the whole project, via mass edits? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed Gigs (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Adam Birch
Open since 18 January. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by Keith D (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Move reviews from January 2014
It would be nice if someone could close the above two discussions. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Move review/Log/2014 January
 * Move review/Log/2014 January
 * Both discussions were by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Buffs/PD-Iran in US
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Buffs/PD-Iran in US (initiated 13 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 06:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Winnit Club
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 06:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Templates for_discussion/Log/2014 February 7
open since mid-January. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 8
open since mid-January. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_8
Please disposition Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_8, as this has not been relisted. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Shattered Skies
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) (initiated 29 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In progress.  --j⚛e deckertalk 22:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed, I'll leave the related moratorium discussion for other wiser heads. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 29
This RfD has been open for nearly three weeks. —  Scott  •  talk  17:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know (initiated 5 January 2014)? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 101. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ bd2412  T 00:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:One Last Time (song)
Discussion opened on 23 January, stalled since 16 Feb. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Levan of Kartli
Discussion stalled. Has already been relisted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Free Christians (Britain)
Open since 28 December 2013. While the discussion was underway, the page was moved out-of-process from to. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 07:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist (anime)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist (anime) (initiated 6 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "So this is a discussion onto whether the anime(s) should be compiled into one article or be merged back to the main article." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 02:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Genderqueer
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genderqueer (initiated 2 September 2012)? Several comments have made in August 2013, October 2013, and February 2014. The opening poster wrote: "I think Pangender and Genderqueer cover the same ground." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 03:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Templates for_discussion/Log/2014 February 7
open for over 10 days, with discussion happening in two places. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Height
Month-old RfC still awaiting closure.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: The RFC was at Template_talk:Height, with a related discussion at Template talk:Height.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gigs (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Eisenhower Tree
This looks like one of those discussions that started out pretty close but has pretty clearly broken one way as it went on. It was up for closure two days ago, and with the large amount of participation, relisting would likely be of very little value. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 9
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 9 which has been open for over 14 days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 07:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jahi McMath
Can an admin look at Talk:Jahi McMath, Normaly this would be a no-brainder move, but there weare a series of procediral mistakes and now it needs an admin....CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Comedian
An uninvolved closer is needed at Talk:Comedian. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * – Consensus is for option B, that 'comedienne' should not be included in the first sentence. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2
Please evaluate for possible snow keep. Seven keep !votes (including one from the subject of the RFC/U), no delete !votes. If possible, please comment on when it is and is not proper to nominate an RFC/U for deletion and when one should request a revdel. It would be quite useful to have some ground rules to refer to the next time an RFC/U is sent to MfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . The result of the discussion was keep. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Live Wire Radio
This has been open since 25 December 2013 (UTC). NorthAmerica1000 11:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably because it's not transcluded on any log page. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 02:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Metropolitan School of the Arts
Relist past 7 days. LibStar (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleted. MER-C 12:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

NFCR discussion needing closure 3

 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ by User:SlimVirgin. -- <font color="#336699">Тимофей <font color="#335599">Лее <font color="#333399">Суда . 22:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ by . -- <font color="#336699">Тимофей <font color="#335599">Лее <font color="#333399">Суда . 00:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ Deleted by and closed. -- <font color="#336699">Тимофей <font color="#335599">Лее <font color="#333399">Суда .  00:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ by . -- <font color="#886699">TLSuda (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ --  TLSuda  (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ --  TLSuda  (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ --  TLSuda  (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ --  TLSuda  (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * is the current list. Werieth (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 21
This is something of a snow close request. The template was nominated for deletion on specious grounds by an editor who has had run-ins with the creating editor. Since then, only one other person has said to delete: another editor who has had a run-in with the creating editor. The rationale of both these editors has been questioned, and their arguments have been dismissed as inappropriate. Eleven others have supported keeping the template on fairly good and solid grounds. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 17:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 14
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 14, which has been open for over 14 days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ for discussion/Log/2014_February_14&diff=597892171&oldid=596937446 Closed by me as delete. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Edit filter
This request by Jimmy xu wrk, an administrator and checkuser in zhwiki, is there for 20 days.--GZWDer (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . Armbrust The Homunculus 17:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fairway Furniture (2nd nomination)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as delete by User:The Bushranger on 13:43, 2 March 2014‎. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Munich Tramway
Opened 25 Jan, relisted twice. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dpmuk (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gemini (2002 Tamil film)
Opened Feb 9, relisted 18 Feb. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 06:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Bullock (Montana politician)
Opened Feb 8, relisted 16 Feb. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ernie
Opened 16 Feb. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. If anyone wants to help fix the links please feel free!   Will take me a while otherwise.  Dpmuk (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (Discussion now at Talk:Ernie (Sesame Street)). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) (initiated 9 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I suggest a one year moratorium on WP:USPLACE change discussions." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, although people won't like how I closed it. -- llywrch (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Leilani Leeane
Open since 20 February 2014 without being relisted.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 03:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16 which has been open for over two weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 17
Please relist or disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 17 which has been open for more than two weeks since relisting the first time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed by me as retarget to Sunapee golden trout. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Collapsed lung
Opened 27 January, relisted 8 Feb. Discussion stalled since 27 Feb. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Siren (noisemaker)
Opened 24 January, relisted 11 Feb, discussion stalled since 20 Feb. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bibliography of encyclopedias
Opened 19 Feb. Discussion stalled since 28 Feb. There seems to be a consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * ✅ – EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 13
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 13, which have been open for over two weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 13
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 17:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 13
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 17:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 13
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 07:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Later Zhou Dynasty
Group discussion of 7 related articles, opened 14 Feb. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sharavathi
Opened 3 February, relisted 10 Feb. No opposes, but only support is the nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . (Discussion now at Talk:Sharavati.) Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tariqul Islam (physician)
has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 07:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:HR 7722
Opened Feb 9, relisted 17 Feb. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Development Planning Unit (DPU)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 07:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Oz Chiri
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 07:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Child of the Universe (album)
Opened 10 Feb, not relisted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Railway station RMs
3 very similar discussions, opened on 21 February. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Reedham railway station (London)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Whitchurch railway station (Hampshire)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Reedham railway station (Norfolk)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Need an Admin to Close a Group Photo Deletion Request

 * A discussion about some proposed deletions of historic photos which had written permission from their source, the San Francisco Public Library, is about 7 days old (see link below).
 * Files for deletion/2014 March 1
 * It seems that of the 3 photos which were recently tagged with Deletion Requests, the below photo has still not had its templates modified to any extent to reflect any result of that discussion.
 * File:Terrific Street Facing East 1913 San Francisco Pacific Street A1.jpg
 * The other 2 photos of that single deletion request have had partial adjustments to their deletion templates but I have to wonder if they are still unresolved (see links below).
 * File:Spider Kellys Dance Hall with Little Egypt 1911 SFLibraryCode AAB-1265 mono.jpg
 * File:Dancehalls of Pacific Street Facing West San Francisco 1909 SFLibraryCode AAB-6692 CropA.jpg
 * Is there an admin here who could make a determination as to the consensus of that discussion, and possibly close that discussion and make final adjustments to the Photo Files Tags? James Carroll (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alex Hartman
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --j⚛e deckertalk 00:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 15
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 15, which has been open for almost 14 days since the previous relist. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza
Opened Feb 9, relisted 17 Feb. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . (Discussion now at Talk:Gaza City.) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph Schereschewsky
Opened 5 Feb. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 09:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Castle of São Jorge
Opened 10 Feb, relisted 19 Feb. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 09:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:18...
Opened 15 February. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Connie Fletcher
has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation (initiated 16 January 2014)? Please consider the previous RfCs in your close: The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013 (closed 23 August 2013)
 * 2) WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission (closed 8 October 2013)
 * 3) WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria (closed 13 January 2014).
 * Note to potential closers: I have commented on earlier RfCs so I really shouldn't close since I'm somewhat involved, but here is my take on the consensus you can use as a cheat sheet, or even just rubber stamp if you are willing to stand behind it as your own:
 * There appears to be rough consensus for Anne Delong's 6 point whitelist-only approach.
 * There is some concern about the word "banned" in point 3 as bitey, and imprecise as we aren't talking about WP:BAN, and rough consensus to change that to something softer. No particular consensus on the exact softer wording, but that could be worked out later.
 * There was some discussion about whether a separate blacklist is necessary, but rough consensus seemed to be that de-whitelisting is effective as a blacklist with less social stigma.
 * All users involved seem to recognize there's no technical way to enforce this in any real sense at this time, but the AfC helper script could be modified to not function unless they are on the whitelist. No current technical means will stop users from installing a "hacked" AfC helper or just manually moving pages. No consensus to use editfilter for technical enforcement.
 * A point was raised that a negative userright such as "denymove" could be used for technical enforcement, but even the proposer suggested that was something that would require a new community-wide discussion and would likely be controversial, so as such, should be considered out-of-scope for this RfC.
 * To sum up the last two points, there does seem to be rough consensus of the participants that a secure technical means to enforce the whitelist is desirable, but not currently available, and that new proposals for such a thing would require a new community-wide discussion, since they might prove controversial.
 * Hope this helps. Gigs (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  13:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle
Comments seem pretty unanimous and there's little positive to be gained by leaving this to run any longer. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by due to inactivity. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
There is a proposal to blacklist a website, could someone look at the reasonably short discussion and see if there is consensus? Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ no consensus for blacklist Gaijin42 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Justin Bieber
Hi, I'm looking for an experienced and uninvolved user to close this lengthy RfC on Bieber's page. It's been open for more than a month now (10 Feb), with discussion from at least eighteen users. Thank you. <font style="color:black;background:yellow;">starship.paint (talk &#124; ctrb) 23:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ general support for inclusion. More discussion needed on specific wording or points. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Embassy of Belgium, Ottawa
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia (initiated 8 January 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The opening poster wrote: Hi all, as some of you will know, some time ago there was a proposal to remove stress marks from Russian words that appear inside the text of articles on the English Wikipedia. The decision was to keep the stress marks, as there is consensus that they are useful.

Because they are useful, some of us are interested in taking this to the next level, and actively add stress marks to as many articles as possible. We'll only work on Russian words that appear inside calls to the lang-ru template, and we will only add the stress marks when we are sure that it is safe to do so, that is, that the information is correct and there is no ambiguity.

Could I please ask you guys if there is consensus for this task? I would really appreciate your support, because I want to improve as many articles as possible. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   19:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Christie RFC on including mention of controversy involving staff
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Chris Christie? The question was, "Should the article include information about actions taken by Christie administration officials, such as their involvement in the George Washington Bridge lanes closure and in the distribution of Hurricane Sandy recovery funds?" The RfC has been open 30 days, and discussion has subsided. Dezastru (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   19:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo
Opened 13 Feb, several screenfuls of supports and opposes and a few comments. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Related move at Talk:International recognition of Kosovo should probably closed alongside the above.  Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See also Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260. I think it should be noted that the claim there that most of the "support" votes are invited to that page by the offline canvassing is pure rubbish... I did a quick count and found nine supporters including myself and several other admins, every last one of us with long edit histories on a variety of subjects and behaviour records that speak of our commitment to Wikipedia policies and polity. The cavassing, if there is any (and I have not investigated that) is purely on the oppose side. Note also that I am disclosing my support of the move, so feel free to check my claims on this matter with that in mind. Andrewa (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   20:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ the other. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive832
Would an uninvolved administrator please review this community ban discussion and decide what action, if any, should be taken? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   17:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2014 March
I have withdrawn this review request (I initiated) review/Log/2014 March&diff=600429672&oldid=600398936. Procedural close, nullifying effect. -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to make a tentative conclusion, as this was a procedural closure. Going in that area, you could have mentioned other aspects too. -DePiep (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 11
Would an uninvolved person please close the deletion discussion for this template? RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters (initiated 31 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of Deadliest Warrior episodes
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Deadliest Warrior episodes (initiated 5 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light (initiated 11 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:U.S. Holidays
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:U.S. Holidays (initiated 19 January 2014)? The discussion is at Template talk:U.S. Holidays. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Waterboarding
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Waterboarding (initiated 6 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Is John A. Rizzo an expert on waterboarding that is, can he be considered a high quality reliable source. Please see above talk section too." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Debora LMP296
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Debora LMP296 (initiated 9 February 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the Debora LMP296, LMP297 and LMP299 articles be merged? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 112
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 112 (initiated 17 March 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Colton Cosmic
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Requests for comment/Colton Cosmic (initiated 10 February 2014)? The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   08:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2014 March 8
The above two discussion need closure. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Deletion review/Log/2014 March 8
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Deletion review/Log/2014 March 8
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 37
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 37 (initiated 13 March 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 08:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Torres (musician)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus assess the consensus at Talk:Torres (musician) (initiated 11 February 2014)? If there is a consensus to remove the POV-check tag, please remove it. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 08:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Blood
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Blood (initiated 22 November 2013). See its subsection Talk:Blood (initiated 19 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Brooklyn Bridge
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brooklyn Bridge (initiated 25 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 07:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abortion (initiated 1 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 07:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Beetroot Design Group
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 07:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Gennady Korotkevich
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 07:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea
Move discussion still needs a formal closure with respect to the second part of the proposal, whether to move Crimean peninsula to Crimea or how else to dispose of the plain Crimea title. (The first part of the proposal has in the meantime been implemented and seems uncontentious at this point.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Spitzer (political scientist)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert Spitzer (political scientist) (initiated 15 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ The header on the title is not quite representative of the discussion. I have closed as not appropriate to use the word "activist" or "advocate", which seemed to be the point being debated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Hatnote
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote (initiated 12 January 2014)? The question posed was: "Should we allow pages with unambiguous titles to include hatnotes to disambiguation pages?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 112
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 112 (initiated 5 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259 after there has been sufficient input. See the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard. I have unarchived the discussion from Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259 to allow for further community input. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Now archived at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * wrote: "Timestamp to prevent archiving. Time step one week. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)" The discussion should not have been archived by the bot until after a week had passed. If, who initiated the site ban discussion, wants to unarchive the section for the further discussion, then I recommend unarchiving it. Otherwise, I withdraw my closure request because there is insufficient participation in the discussion to make a determination to ban or not to ban. Cunard (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think User:Cunard's unarchiving was helpful, as it permitted additional comments in light of Kendite/يوسف حسين latest, post-OP block on Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic. There appears to be enough comments now for an admin to assess the consensus. It seems that all who weighed in except one user were in favor of a site ban. Middayexpress (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I unarchived the discussion so more editors could review the situation and determine whether Kendite should be banned. I don't think a close of the ban discussion at this time would be helpful, but would an admin take a look and either close the discussion or say "not closed"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . The proposal clearly din't gain any traction, and formally closing at this time wouldn't be helpful. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles
This discussion has been open since January 31, with no additional comment having been made for over two weeks. bd2412 T 18:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 45. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . It's been inactive for over a month and a close wouldn't accomplish much—further discussion is needed to refine the proposal. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since there is clearly overwhelming support for the proposal, and no request has been made for any refinement, I am deeming it passed. bd2412  T 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Yelp, Inc.
Opened February 4th. It has not been 30 days, but there have been no comments for 10 days and consensus seems clear enough to assess. Because I have a COI, I don't think it is appropriate for me to close the RfC boldly and make the corresponding edits, so I am requesting a disinterested admin evaluate consensus. CorporateM (Talk) 21:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As of today comments are still coming in.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This RfC has been open for more than 30 days and there have been no comments since Feb 28th. So it could be closed now. I do not want to close since I was a participant. Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Single-payer health care
Not formally closed, but the "none" contingent thinks there is a good reason to delete, e.g. the WP:SECONDARY book at. At least a few of the people !voting "none" asked that the ELs be incorporated as references in some expansion, which does not appear to have happened yet. EllenCT (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Single-payer health care (initiated 19 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 07:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Outrage (2009 film)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Outrage (2009 film) (initiated 31 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2009 flu pandemic timeline
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2009 flu pandemic timeline (initiated 31 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this page be moved to 2009 flu pandemic timeline (details) and move 2009 flu pandemic timeline summary to this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 2 (initiated 9 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Skaramuca
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Skaramuca (initiated 18 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Electricity
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electricity (initiated 23 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 07:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers (initiated 3 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (initiated 11 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Duck Dynasty
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Duck Dynasty (initiated 26 February 2014)? The last contribution to the discussion was 7 March 2014. Please consider Talk:Phil Robertson in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mr Whoppit
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mr Whoppit (initiated 5 February 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the article contain the statement 'Gar Wood and his brother George also kept teddy bears tied to their raceboat engines or is it inappropriate for this article because it is not related to the subject of this article 'Mr. Whoppit'?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-opening this and requesting another opinion. I see the comments on talk: as being 2:2 either way, with no clear consensus. I do not see Armbrust's claim of 3:1 here. Nor do I appreciate his undiscussed reversion and blanking of expanded content on the same theme, nor his reversion and blanking of my comments on talk: (I don't know what part of WP:TPO that falls under). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's actually 2:1, only said that it should be covered, but not that in this article. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 112
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 112 (initiated 2 February 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure (initiated 22 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . The proposal never gained any traction; closing it wouldn't accomplish much. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 08:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wtf ? Not only did you unilaterally overrule me (which is appalling manners) but your closing summary was completely inaccurate—there wasn't a "rough consensus" for or against anything. Hardly anybody commented and the proposal never got off the ground. hat's very different from consensus being against the proposal. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to replace it with a better summary, if you want. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Signatures
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Signatures (initiated 5 February 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Please consider the 14 March 2014 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Signatures in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header (initiated 16 February 2014)? The discussion is titled "RFC: Should adding pufc to image captions be a required step in the WP:PUF process?". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga
Would like an uninvolved editor to close this RFC. Thanks. <font color="#0080FF">DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 22:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 06:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Russia closure request
With good faith I made two parallel RfCs on Talk:Ukraine and Talk:Russia. In retrospect, this is was a dumb idea as they could have incongruent outcomes. As the RfC on Talk:Ukraine has much more discussion and was the first, I request that the one on Talk:Russia be closed and discussion be directed to Talk:Ukraine. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 18:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ukraine closure request
It has been over a week of discussion on a timely matter. While I see a certain consensus, the issue is quite touchy and a bit of a battleground. Discussion seems to be dwindling and certain users (myself included) have basically been WP:HORSE. It seems ready to be closed to me, but I would like to request that an admin or uninvolved 3rd party consider closing this RfC based on the many many comments and policy arguments made. Note that the RfC has five subsections to it. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)