Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 11

 2014 entries 

Talk:Duck Dynasty
I'm not sure I'm doing this right, but I'd like to try! lol... There was a proposal to condense the GQ section that has been idle for almost a week and a half... I'd like to have an uninvolved editor close the request... Thank you Nickmxp (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Duck Dynasty (initiated 9 January 2014)? See Talk:Duck Dynasty (initiated 15 January 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Now archived at Talk:Duck Dynasty/Archive 2. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One major participant was a sockpuppet of a banned user, and it's not clear if a formal close is still necessary. Currently waiting for replies on the talk page. Sunrise  (talk)  20:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * After a close and few days with no responses to see if any additional summary is needed, I'm inclined to call this one closed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Sunrise  (talk)  07:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts (initiated 22 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote: Let's start a discussion on this RFC to reach consensus and set up the way for future editors.

The question is: how should graphs on Wikipedia be created? Please consider the closed RfCs Talk:Alejandro García Padilla#Should we include graphs about Puerto Rico's economic behavior under the Governor's tenure? and Talk:United States#Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey in your close. These two related discussions were mentioned in the RfC. The latter close was contested and upheld at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive258. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Georgism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Georgism (initiated 10 August 2013). See also Talk:Georgism (initiated 4 January 2014), where the opening poster wrote: "Ought this article include people who have stated any support of land taxes as being 'influenced by Georgism' without any sourcing linking the term to those people?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism (initiated 15 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I am calling an RFC for this, to establish consensus for a widespread change which I wish to make. ... Regarding articles in Category:Roman Catholic-related lists: should Eastern Catholic entities be separated out into new articles, or should the existing articles be renamed minus "Roman" to bring them into conformance with consensus and categorization practice in Catholic Church-related articles?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports (initiated 16 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "There has been a long-running dispute at Talk:Australian national association football team that has spiralled out into a number of requested moves, ANI threads and much else besides." The question posed was: "should articles about national sports teams include "men's" or "women's" in the title?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Hunter Bryce
I am the primary editor of the article and there are nothing but "delete" !votes in the AfD, so until I (or someone else) can find more sources to prove notability to more people, I redirected the article.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 07:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 23:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pamela Geller
Admin needed to close this RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There were actually two RfCs on that page - see also Talk:Pamela Geller. StAnselm (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * closed the final RfC. It is not clear whether the first one is valid or not. Gigs (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Close other one. NE Ent — Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 3 April 2014‎

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Open since 13 January. --Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 23:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:WW2InfoBox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:WW2InfoBox (initiated 1 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 23:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

NFCR discussions needing closure

 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ --  TLSuda  (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * ✅ --  TLSuda  (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 *  TLSuda  (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * is the current list. Werieth (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be really helpful if another admin could step up and close a few of the above. I've participated in them all or else I would. --  TLSuda  (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Added more that are 30+ days old that I cannot close per WP:INVOLVED. --  TLSuda  (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (initiated 13 January 2014)? The questions posed were: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Shall month abbreviations be limited to the first three characters of the month, or may a fourth character be used?
 * 2) May a month abbreviation be followed by a full stop when it is not at the end of a sentence?
 * 3) Shall WP:Manual of Style and WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers be required to agree on this point?
 * This RFC has been running over a month, and discussion has died down. There is a contradiction between the "Manual of Style" and the "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" about whether when a month is abbreviated to to limited space, it must be three characters without a period ("Sep") or whether "Sept." would be allowed. User:BattyBot (at least) has been making corrections based on "Sept." being unacceptable, and many of the cite templates mark dates containing "Sept." as invalid dates. Please assess the consensus so that bot and template writers will have clear guidance about what dates are or are not proper. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Requesting an uninvolved editor to close this MOS-related discussion. Familiarity with the two relevant MOS documents, WP:Manual of Style and WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, is recommended. Please note that abbreviated months are allowed only in certain circumstances; this RFC did not address those circumstances (it took them as a given), only the format of the abbreviations themselves. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 151. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have closed the archived discussion according to consensus.  TLSuda  (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ronan Farrow
Can an admin or experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronan Farrow? We have had a 12 day discussion with 6 editors weighing-in with their opinions and I feel this is ready for a neutral assessment, which another editor has repeatedly suggested I am unable to provide. For that reason I believe a neutral closure review is necessary to mitigate the potential of hard feelings. BlueSalix (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor also assess the consensus at Talk:Ronan Farrow (initiated 4 March 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I handled the second request, but not the first.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ with the first request, which means this case has been taken care of. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 18
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 18, which has been open for over 30 days (in addition to over a dozen longstanding RfDs). On a side note, I made a comment here about the double redirect bots working slowly which has not yet been addressed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 18
Please disposition Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 18 which has been open for more than one month (along with several other TfDs that have been open for weeks). --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 18
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 18
 * by .  TLSuda  (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Batch of RfDs
RfD has gotten quite a backlog again, so general attention would be appreciated. Here are several that I think are ready for closes, which I'd do myself if I weren't involved: Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 25
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 25
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 07:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 28
 * ✅ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 2
 * ✅ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 4
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 4
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 23:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 7
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 7
 * ✅ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 8
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 07:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 10
 * ✅ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 17
 * ✅ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 4
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 4, which has been open for close to one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 7
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 7, which has been open for close to one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sasanian Empire
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sasanian Empire (initiated 21 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was a participant on this one, so I'll leave it for others. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Active discussion is ongoing toward consensus and "closure" would be inappropriate. Suggest archive of this request without action. Gigs (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment With 2 comment in the last 2 weeks, I wouldn't say it's active. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion is continuing in the subsection at Talk:Sasanian Empire. A close right now probably would hinder that discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The last edit to the talk page was 19 March. <font color="FF6600"><font face="Times New Roman">Sunrise  <font size="1.8">(talk)  20:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus has already been determined locally and the map changes already implemented without objection. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Woody Allen
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Woody Allen (initiated 4 February 2014)? The opening poster wrote: Two separate questions require consideration:

1. How much detail should be given to Dylan Farrow's sexual assault allegations?

2. Do they warrant a separate section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 19
Discussion is stale. No comments have been posted since 4 March 2014 (25 days ago). -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 23:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 10
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 10, which has been open for close to one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 23:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Progressive tax/Archive 4
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Progressive tax/Archive 4 (initiated 18 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Yaris678 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle (initiated 15 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. The opening poster wrote: "I am requesting User:PrivateWiddle to stop using his new signature, which appears to be a calculated method of insulting female wikipedians whilst purporting to be referring to Scotsmen. It's true that some people may find his official user name also to be offensive, but that does not concern me here." The close due to inactivity is insufficient. A close is necessary to determine whether PrivateWiddle's signature is considered acceptable or unacceptable by the community. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the RFC/U comments. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The closer [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FUser_conduct%2FArchive&diff=599952908&oldid=587119791 wrote] at Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive: "Nearly all comments occurred within a week of original complaint. Clear consensus was that the signature was not offensive". Armbrust, would you include this text in your note at the top of the RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 17:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement
Could an experienced editor please close the discussion titled MERGE on the talk page an remove the merge tags as appropriate? Many thanks. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed as no consensus (at least for any particular proposal). Hobit (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 113
Please summarize and close this discussion or say it should needs an RfC or whatever thanks. I tried summarizing but am involved and my summary was disputed. Dmcq (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Second that. I am the one who disagreed, but of course I am involved too. This is either a major change in the rules or a welcome correction to a common misreading of the rules, depending on who you ask. An uninvolved admin with a firm grasp of policy writing up a summary of what the consensus is and is not would be really welcome. -- Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue seems to have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Dmcq (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ted Nugent
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ted Nugent (initiated 21 February 2014)? The opening poster wrote: Nugent has called Obama a "Subhuman mongrel" and "chimpanzee". These comments have been widely commented on in reliable sources. 

Should these comments be described as (Note, not asking how we should describe Nugent himself)
 * racist
 * offensive
 * been described as/called racist
 * not qualified
 * not included
 * other

For those !voting "Follow the sources" - Do you have an opinion as to what that would result in in this case? What description is supported by the sources? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed. Hobit (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260 (initiated 23 March 2014)? If there is consensus for a community ban, please add the user to Wikipedia:List of banned users. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 12:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 10
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 10, which has been relisted for close to one month, filed in mid-February. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 13:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 13
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 13, which has been open for several weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 13:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Soviet Union
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Soviet Union (initiated 8 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "To avoid further edit warring over the infobox, a Request for Comments will be used to obtain consensus on whether to use the 15-state infobox or the 11-1-3-state (1 continuator, 11 successors, 3 restored) infobox." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * by Olaf Davis (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Halo (series)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Halo (series) (initiated 25 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme) (initiated 3 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 12:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Socialism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Socialism (initiated 26 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 15
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 15, which have been open for several weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I relisted this, but it need not run another 7 days if a closer finds there's consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 20
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 20, which have been open for two weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 20
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 03:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 20
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 12:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 20
 * I relisted Srpsko Sarajevo, but it need not run another 7 days if a closer finds there's consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Robert Andrigo
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 12:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Airbus Group
Would an uninvolved editor please look at a rather complicated multi-page move, which was discussed in three successive sections of the Talk:Airbus Group talk page: Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Airbus Group/Archives/2014 -- a merge that was made without discussion for 7 days and without consensus
 * Talk:Airbus Group/Archives/2014 -- a BRD discussion that, due to the complexity of the multi-page move, left the page in the Bold state (multi-pages moved) rather than the more normal post-BRD Revert state.
 * Talk:Airbus Group/Archives/2014 -- a specific discussion on undoing the non-consensus move.
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 18:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this can be archived now. The discussion died prior to the official closing of the last topic. All three topics feed into each other and are discussed in the subsequent topics. Therefore, I would say that the close by  is sufficient for this discussion.  TLSuda  (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , do you still want, that the first two sections are closed? Armbrust The Homunculus 07:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for asking. The articles should never have ended the way it did.  The "no consensus" on the third step of the process (by Cuchullain) was correct:  there was no consensus for the move, then or ever.  I would have thought the process should have then gone back to the second step and continued backing out the non-consensus changes.  However, the article got left in the moved/merged state, with the non-consensus merge left in place, simply for one reason:  the original non-consensus merge involved some page moves etc. that, at the time of the BRD (in the second of the two items above, the BRD on recent page merge) it was decided to temporarily leave the move/merges in place while the discussion continued.  In other words, it was temporarily decided to leave the move/merges in the Bold state, rather than the more normal Reverted state, even though there was not a consensus to support the Bold move/merge.  Thus, when Cuchullain closed the third item, an inquiry should have been started on the second item (BRD), closed that, and then moved back to the first item, the original non-consensus move.


 * As a result, Wikipedia has no article at all on the (important, large, globally-operating) historically-important company EADS, which existed for over a decade from the 2000 to 2014. Instead, our readers are directed to the name of another large pan-European company (Airbus Group) that does exist now in 2014, and was partly composed of some of the divisions of the old European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company.  It is a bit complicated, but that result ought never to have happened, per the lack of consensus for it on the relevant discussion pages.  N2e (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with. 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. concluded that "no consensus" had been reached in the requested moves discussion. I believe that his conclusion of "no consensus" was correct but the result of not moving the article back to its stable title seems to conflict with the instructions at Requested moves/Closing instructions. , would you take a look at this again? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure. As I told N2e some time ago, I decided against moving back to EADS because there had been a merge with a convoluted edit history. A simple move would have had the potential to move all this complicated history to EADS, while also leaving the name "Airbus Group" (the name of the currently existing company) as a redirect to the old name. I recommended reopening the discussion at a later time in hopes of attracting a wider participation. Additionally, if a restoration is really desired, perhaps someone could draft new material for an Airbus Group article so we don't just send readers looking for it to EADS. At this point, however, nearly 3 months have passed. I think that's well past the time we should be reconsidering previous closures; as I say I think it will be more productive to start afresh.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What Armbrust was really asking: do the two previous discussions require closing, or does (my opinion) the closing of the last section enough of a formal closure since all discussions were considered. The move/merge issue is different and anyone with the ability can perform that.  This board is for closure requests, and it seems like this is closed properly to me. Am I correct in my opinion?  TLSuda  (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would say so.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Arzel.2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Requests for comment/Arzel.2 (initiated 11 January 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) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Been open for a long time with no comments for the last 10 day. Very controversial.  An unbiased close by an editor with experience would be helpful.Casprings (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cannabis (drug)
Discussion on this seems to have died down and this could now do with closing. As commented in the RfC I'd ask any closer to consider the comments in the RM as well in closing the RfC as the RfC is essentially a continuation of that discussion. As the closer of the move review on this topic I think it would be best if the RfC was closed by someone else. Dpmuk (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed. But it looks like another move discussion has opened up today....  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Incompetently closed! This close is an embarrassment.  Based on the complete lack of any analysis or even a recital of the major points offered in support or opposition, it's not clear the TLSuda even read the entire discussion.  When a serious debate has been this contentious, it should be obvious that if you're not willing to put the work into doing an appropriate close, you shouldn't be doing it at all, especially when you don't think the question even matters, as is apparent in TLSuda's remark, "I sincerely recommend that editors should fully consider whether continuous opening of discussions on the name for this article is at all productive."  I've asked that TLSuda undo his close and allow someone who actually is willing to put in the effort to do the job right.  Otherwise, I think we're headed back to a Move Review.  Msnicki (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I responded to your accusation of an "incompetent close" on my talkpage. I read the whole discussion, not once, but three times; the whole discussion, from the original move to today. Its mostly needless garbage of editors repeating themselves with different words. The consensus is to keep it at Cannabis (drug). If you are seriously wanting to open yet another move review to be opened right after a new move discussion has started you are just causing more work for everyone simply because you are unhappy with the outcome.  You can't keep pushing this just because you don't agree. Take a chill and drop the stick.  TLSuda  (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have posted only a single requested move on 4 Jan 2014 and I have been waiting patiently for that same discussion to be closed by someone who will take the debate seriously. By your own words, labeling it "silly", you do not.  If you can't take a question seriously (as the participants on either side of the debate obviously did) you have no business closing it.  You should have left it for someone who could take the question seriously.
 * I had nothing to do with Moxy's decision to open RFC proposing substantially the same move question (but less constructively) while the first move review was still underway. I thought he should have waited for the review to finish and I said so at the time.  When the move review was closed as overturn rather than relist, it was because that RFC was just a continuation of that same debate and still open.  I also had nothing to do with this latest requested move.  You're simply painting with a broad brush that anyone who dares debate article titles must be wasting time.
 * I've requested review at WP:Move review/Log/2014 April. Msnicki (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are grossly over exaggerating what I've said. I said that it is "silly" to keep bringing the same argument up over and over without new information just because you don't like it. Productive discussions are never silly, but continuous beating of a dead horse is. You many not have agreed with the new RFC, but you've created the same situation by having a move review and a move discussion simultaneously. You obviously aren't stop complaining until you get your way.  TLSuda  (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not exaggerated anything. I simply quoted you.  Your exact words were, ""This is silly. Stop wasting everyone's time arguing over this nonsense. Go do something productive."
 * You, otoh, paint with a broad brush. I have not been "bringing the same argument up over and over".  There has been exactly one debate over one RM, albeit disjointed into an RM + an RfC, but not because I had anything to do with starting the RfC.  When the RM was closed as move the first time, there were complaints (a) that the closer should have been an admin because only an admin could do the move given that the target was protected, (b) that the closer injected his own research (some Google n-grams analyses) and that if he wanted to do that, he should have !voted instead and (c) that the closer had not paid enough attention to a claim by those opposing that marijuana and cannabis differ because marijuana does not include hash.
 * Virtually all the repetition was of the claim that marijuana and cannabis differ, since that was the only objection left standing. But I was not the one making that claim and I am not responsible because other editors repeat themselves.  I merely fact-checked the claim every time it was repeated, e.g., pointing out that the sources claimed to support the claim not only did not support it, they refuted it.  My own comments did offer new information, e.g., sources showing that marijuana does include hash and additional tables of search results.
 * More to the point, if you think some of the discussion in the RfC was repetitious, so what. There were lots of !votes and lots of arguments that were not repetitive.  Further, we do not discard arguments merely because they are repeated.  This is not about whether I get my way.  It is about whether a lazy, drive-by close of a contentious debate by an editor who thinks the debate is silly is appropriate.  Realistically, if you had posted your close as a !vote, it would likely have been ignored as WP:JUSTAVOTE, which I think ought to be telling as to whether this was an appropriate close in the first place.  Msnicki (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Unapologetic
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Unapologetic (initiated 12 January 2013)? See the RfC at Talk:Unapologetic, where the RfC initiator wrote: "The purpose of this RfC is to determine if the community consensus supports adding R&B and dubstep to the infobox of this article." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ NE Ent 20:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries where Arabic is an official language
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of countries where Arabic is an official language (initiated 10 January 2014)? See Talk:List of countries where Arabic is an official language. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War (initiated 10 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Now archived at Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 14. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no need for a formal closure of this. All involved came to an agreement on what should be done with it (fix it so it can be transcluded, and transclude it), and that was done long ago. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:POV
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:POV (initiated 17 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ NE Ent 20:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system (initiated 4 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WADR
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WADR (initiated 23 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/QuackGuru2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 (initiated 26 January 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)
 * Because this deals with user conduct, shouldn't this be specifically be closed by an admin? <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , these instructions are hard to follow for a dolt like me. I closed the thing, but if you could check whether I filed the paperwork correctly I'd appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything looks okay to me. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Anita Sarkeesian
This was already closed in a slightly malformed way by an editor who had participated in the discussion. The consensus does appear to be clear, but as at least one other editor has expressed concern with the previous close, I've reverted it and request that an experienced uninvolved editor perform the close. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/ c 22:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Are You Experienced
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAre_You_Experienced&diff=600897952&oldid=600893602 the RfC] at Talk:Are You Experienced (initiated 21 March 2014). See Talk:Are You Experienced; WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ NE Ent 01:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 14
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 14, which have been open for several weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 14
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 14 The Bushranger One ping only 02:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I relisted the former, but it can still be closed if a closer feels there's consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And the latter is ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 02:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 23
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 23, which have been open for two weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 23
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 23
 * I've relisted these, but they can still be closed if a closer feels there's consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The latter is ✅. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mario Cerrito
Need an admin to look over and close/relist as necessary; the header for it has twice been overwritten in good faith by (possibly involved) users trying to close the discussion. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 13:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dallas Buyers Club
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dallas Buyers Club (initiated 4 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I added a section about controversy of Leto being cast in the transgender role of Rayon". The section was twice reverted, and the opening poster started an RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say there is no need for a close here--all resolved some weeks ago. Hobit (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ It may not have needed a close, but I've gone ahead and formally closed it since there was an open request. Its nice to see when editors work things out positively. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 16
Please disposition Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 16, which has been open for several weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Georgia–Marshall Islands relations
has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Georgia (country) and Template talk:Infobox country
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Georgia (country) (initiated 3 January 2014) and Template talk:Infobox country (initiated 3 August 2013)? An editor in the second discussion wrote: "Since this is not just a template matter, should it not be advertised for community-wide attention, using the RFC template? Since the meaning is unclear and there is no clear consensus, perhaps it would also be useful to close this local RfC and reword it before presenting it as a community RfC, clarifying that the request also applies to similar templates, such as Infobox former country (it is particularly relevant to Nazi Germany, which links to two audio files, one of which is a recording of a Nazi song that is banned in several countries, possibly presenting problems for use of Wikipedia in an educational context) and clarifying the various points on which an opinion is needed" A close might be helpful in following through with this editor's suggestions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ NE Ent 11:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260
It would be nice, if someone could close this recent closure review. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine
Would an univolved administrator please take a look and consider closing two different proposals on Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Both have been open for ten days. One is a MERGE proposal: Merge with 2014 Crimean crisis and the other is a MOVE proposal: Requested move2. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine
 * ✅ Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 13:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pablo Casals
Could an administrator have a look at this page and consider a close? I would have closed it myself but I think it is important in the event of any future disputes that it is done as properly as possible. It has been open for three weeks and there seems to be quite a strong consensus. There has been discussion in the past seven days limited to three more votes towards consensus and the ongoing repeated opposition from two vocal users. Despite this, I can't see the benefit of keeping it open any longer when no change is being made. 217.43.24.126 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that this close request is another one of the WP:SPA IPs with no edits. The geographical range is quite broad so either extensive meatpuppetry or a roaming IP. In ictu oculi (talk)

This discussion is now ready to be assessed and closed by an administrator. It was posted thirty days ago and has obtained a larger number of comments from Wikipedia users. As another user wrote above, there does seem to be a broad consensus in that all but a very small number of users agree with the arguments presented, but, according to the wishes of those in the discussion, it would be preferable if it were closed formally. The issue is self-contained, with Talk:Pablo Casals containing all of the relevant information and no previous knowledge of the subject being necessary. 86.137.43.20 (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as 131.111.185.66 (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
 * I agree that the discussion is ready for closure. Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pablo Casals (initiated 1 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote: The cellist Pablo Casals is typically known as Pablo Casals in English texts, but as Pau Casals to Catalan speakers. The established consensus on Talk:Pablo Casals is for the article Pablo Casals to use Pablo, but the issue of which name to use on other articles has never been properly discussed. There exist some Wikipedia articles related to Catalonia that mention Casals. For some of these articles, the original editor happened to use the name Pau. My question for editors is whether the less common Pau should remain in these articles without any clarification that Pau Casals is actually the famous Pablo Casals. As far as I can see, there are three possibilities: I have included below further information about the history of the dispute, evidence confirming that Pablo is the common name and copies of relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Option one: change Pau to Pablo
 * Option two: keep Pau and include a note that Pau Casals is Pablo Casals
 * Option three: keep Pau and remove any mention of Pablo
 * ✅ NE Ent 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Yelp, Inc.
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Yelp, Inc. (initiated 3 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote: Should the current "Controversies" section be:
 * (a) Left as-is
 * (b) Renamed to "Integrity of reviews" or "Legitimacy of Reviews"
 * (c) Be distributed throughout the article
 * (d) Moved to a sub-section of the History section
 * (e) Something else Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ NE Ent 14:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Two PUF discussions
It would be good, if an admin would close these two PUF nominations. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly unfree files/2014 April 4
 * Possibly unfree files/2014 April 5
 * ✅ -- Diannaa (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Arnhem train accident
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed.  Sandstein   15:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Latin Europe
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Latin Europe (initiated 12 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks a lot, Cunard. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:SCUM Manifesto
Wanted: An admin with strict neutrality concerning gender related studies to close this RFC concerning the addition of the Violence against men category to the SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas and make appropriate change to the article --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'm that admin, but I closed it anyway. Seriously, "neutrality concerning gender related studies" is really a non-starter, and I'll leave it at that. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Scholarlyarticles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Requests for comment/Scholarlyarticles (initiated 27 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) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, I have closed this; thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/24.0.133.234
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Requests for comment/24.0.133.234 (initiated 11 March 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) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Editor review
Question presented: Whether the WP:ER board's level of activity merits its closure and marking as historical.

Formal RfC opened 2 March, delisted 31 March. Discussion is fairly stagnant at this point, and given the !voting breakdown, while based on the discussion I believe there is a clearly appropriate outcome, as the person who started the RfC I'm not comfortable doing it myself. I have posted a neutral !vote count at the RfC for the convenience of anybody interested in assessing the closure. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Provisionally closed pending new proposal by participant -- recommend revisiting in a couple weeks. NE Ent 20:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Taliban
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Taliban (initiated 25 February 2014) The opening poster wrote: "Should the lede mention that the Taliban originated in Pakistan?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Green  C  15:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2014 April 20
This FFD needs closure by an admin. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2014 March
Wanted: An admin with the courage to essentially disregard all of this text and make the outcome dependent on the broader RfC on bird names. Since the MRV hinges on competing views of naming conventions, which that discussion can settle, there is little value in keeping it open. If I were the closer, I might add a disclaimer that the MRV can be revisited if the RfC results in no consensus (still early days, but this seems unlikely). --BDD (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably time to close the RFC as well at this point: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style—Other than some offsite canvassing going on, I think new input is petering out. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Love to, but I have no idea which of the ten gazillion topic specific closure templates to use. Drop me a note on my talk page and I will do the needful. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The move review was closed by, but the bird article name RfC still need closure. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I will close it in about 12 hours. I'm writing the close now.  DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now done so, see & . If I didn't get the form right, would someone please adjust. I don't do this very often.  DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of automobile marques

 * Requesting closure of this dated discussion. NorthAmerica1000 01:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just archive it, nobody's going to object. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:JzG: Yes, but this would require leaving the merge templates on the List of automobile manufacturers and List of automobile marques articles into perpetuity. NorthAmerica1000 01:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can just remove them. The request failed, there was virtually no input, it was a long time ago. A classic case for an uncontroversial non-admin close. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. NorthAmerica1000 04:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox film
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox film (initiated 8 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries by average wage
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of countries by average wage (initiated 20 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Homunq (࿓) 12:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula (initiated 10 March 2014)? The question posed was: "Should this article be redirected to Genetic history of Europe?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Homunq (࿓) 12:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Shield
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Shield (initiated 26 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "This page has a lot of related articles which are composed solely of in-universe material with no real-world significance or notability. As Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I'd like to redirect the following articles to the article page:" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 16:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of Ukrainian elections
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Ukrainian elections (initiated 8 March 2014)? The opening poster [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Ukrainian_elections&action=history has been attempting to get the issue resolved by restoring the expired RfC tag] to get independent input. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ <font color="FF6600"><font face="Times New Roman">Sunrise  <font size="1.8">(talk)  04:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Euromaidan/Archive 12014/May
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Euromaidan/Archive 12014/May (initiated 17 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  12:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States (initiated 1 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --j⚛e deckertalk 02:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Moral responsibility
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Moral responsibility (initiated 23 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ <font color="FF6600"><font face="Times New Roman">Sunrise  <font size="1.8">(talk)  05:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums (initiated 28 April 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --j⚛e deckertalk 22:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Category talk:Stubs
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Stubs (initiated 23 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ <font color="FF6600"><font face="Times New Roman">Sunrise  <font size="1.8">(talk)  10:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chris seidl
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chris seidl (initiated 25 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ The Bushranger One ping only 08:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Siconize/Laravel (framework)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Siconize/Laravel (framework) (initiated 24 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GameGuy95
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GameGuy95 (initiated 23 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GameGuy95/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (daytime version)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GameGuy95/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (daytime version) (initiated 23 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alfonzo Green
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alfonzo Green (initiated 22 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SaucyJimmy
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SaucyJimmy (initiated 22 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Falador Swag
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Falador Swag (initiated 20 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jalen17/sandbox
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jalen17/sandbox (initiated 20 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wanted! History
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wanted! History (initiated 20 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NTnx
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NTnx (initiated 20 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/Pornographic actresses
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/Pornographic actresses (initiated 18 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omar Abubakar
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omar Abubakar (initiated 16 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Homunq (࿓) 12:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC) (ps. I'd appreciate attention to the Voting system RfC below.)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra-Acoustic harassment
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra-Acoustic harassment (initiated 14 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)  (recorded here by Homunq (࿓) 12:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghost (TV Series)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghost (TV Series) (initiated 6 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club, Excel
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club, Excel (initiated 13 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Yugoslav Front
This discussion has been extended once before, it's at the very bottom of RM backlog, and it's high time someone closes it. The raw tally now is, AFAICT: This really isn't very difficult at this point, one simply has to be uninvolved to close it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yugoslavia in World War II
 * 11 support
 * 8 oppose
 * several alternative suggestions (split, ...)
 * Yugoslav theatre of World War II
 * 5 support
 * 6 oppose
 * National Liberation War
 * 1 support
 * 10 oppose
 * several comments (disambiguate, ...)
 * World War II in Yugoslavia
 * 12 support
 * 4 oppose
 * Military history of Yugoslavia during World War II
 * 1 support
 * 4 oppose
 * Resistance in Yugoslavia
 * 2 support
 * 4 oppose
 * ✅ Cheers, Homunq (࿓) 01:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * PS. I was not able to do the actual move, however; could somebody do that for me? Also, I'd appreciate attention to the Voting system RfC below. Thanks, Homunq (࿓) 01:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Michaëlle Jean/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michaëlle Jean/Archive 2 (initiated 15 April 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Michaëlle Jean. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  11:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Scarlett Johansson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Scarlett Johansson (initiated 7 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  13:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Post-nominals
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Post-nominals (initiated 26 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  11:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:UKForex
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:UKForex (initiated 25 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  10:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Young editor userboxes
Would an admin assess the consensus at Miscellany for deletion/Young editor userboxes (initiated 21 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  16:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sparky 384/Sparky 384
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sparky 384/Sparky 384 (initiated 20 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zach464
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zach464 (initiated 20 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Alexian Lien beating
Please close this discussion per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND. The topic is purely speculation about hypothetical evil motives of living person Alexian Lien, and/or the unsourced hypothetical evil motives of the motorcyclist group. The thread is attracting trolling and unsourced accusations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  15:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Russia
Been open for 30 days and no clear consensus. Requesting neutral party close it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  10:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 1
This discussion has already ran it's 7 day course with not a single vote for deletion other than the nominator's. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:Satellizer. Number   5  7  15:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 12
Would an admin please assess the consensus in this CFD, initiated 12 April? It's had no new comments for two weeks. It was closed as delete on 23 April, but reopened because the same category had been deleted before, and the closing admin had participated in the previous CFD. 101.0.71.4 (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  15:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Right-wing socialism
There is an RfC where the template has expired. I believe the concensus is clear and tried to close, but was reverted on the grounds that I am not an administrator. Regards. Op47 (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Request to closer: Please consider the arguments at Articles for deletion/Right-wing socialism and Articles for deletion/Right-wing socialism (2nd nomination) in your close. One of the RfC participants wrote that "those who opined at the AfD should really have been notified of this", so the arguments made at the AfD are likely relevant to this discussion. 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  • 02:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Undone -- the article deletion requires a new AfD, not a simple RfC on the page which was not widely participated in. Backdoor deletions with low participation are "not done". BTW, 4 to 2 is rarely called a "clear consensus" by anyone I know.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is currently a thread at ANI that is discussing this issue.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The RfC discussion has ended, but still needs a formal closure. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe the outcome of the ANI thread was to notify participants of the prior AfD and allow them time to comment. There have been no comments or !votes for one month and the RfC as a whole has been open for 2 months. I'd say it's time someone closed it (yet again--they say three's a charm).--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ No consensus. Close !vote count, no strong policy arguments, and recent AFDs. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
Closure is needed on this matter; the WP:RfC expired on March 30 and a closure is needed to indicate what the WP:Consensus is (whether there is or is not one) for that WP:RfC. There has been one recent comment since the WP:RfC expired and the fact that the editor noticed the WP:RfC appears to have been due to a different discussion currently going on there; the WP:RfC is otherwise stagnant. Flyer22 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  17:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau (initiated 2 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the lead include a summary of the reliably sourced content in the article that is not related to her crime(s)?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Number   5  7  14:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism (initiated 8 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  11:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 63
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 63 (initiated 9 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I propose we add the follow text to the exemptions section: 'Non-free images may be used on non-article space page when there is explicit permission via OTRS from the copyright holder allowing this use and the copyright holder is involved in a collaborative effort with Wikipedians to improve Wikipedia'" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ The discussion has been closed.  S ven M anguard   <font color="F0A804">Wha?  19:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Edit warring
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring (initiated 10 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ The discussion has been closed.  S ven M anguard   <font color="F0A804">Wha?  18:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters (initiated 14 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  10:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Main Page (initiated 2 April 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  11:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2014 April
Would an admin (or admins) assess the consensus at: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Move review/Log/2014 April
 * Move review/Log/2014 April
 * Move review/Log/2014 April
 * ✅ Number   5  7  18:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GDAP Entertainment
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GDAP Entertainment (initiated 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  10:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Voting system
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Voting system, initiated 19 april 2014? Or, if this request is premature, please suggest when it would be appropriate? Homunq (࿓) 18:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ The default time for an RFC is 30 days, but there has been no further discussion for a week, so I have closed it. Number   5  7  14:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Assault weapons legislation
I started the RfC before realizing that Requested moves is a better process in this situation. Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  11:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Berlin
This RFC has been fruitless and won't help to solve the dispute there. It's time to close this. One of the Users is willing to try other dispute resolution after this ends. It would just be better to move the process along.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So if an univolved editor wouldn't mind please close this. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that the RfC was incorrectly worded, so it can be closed as invalid. -YMB29 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Berlin (initiated 7 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "1. Is inline attribution needed for the sentence 'During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder' ? 2. Should the article include the sentence 'These claims are criticized by Russian historians like Oleg Rzheshevsky, who stated that such descriptions of the Red Army are similar to the images instilled by Nazi propaganda' ?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is important to know that the way the RfC was worded was biased and misleading. The wording does not accurately represent the dispute on the talk page. The user who hastily created the RfC quickly commented in it himself without understanding the dispute.
 * Then there was a third question added later, after some users already commented.
 * Also, the first question did not make it clear that the issue was inline attribution, and many users thought it was inline citation.
 * Can someone just close the RfC as invalid. I hope to resolve the dispute using dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This actually ended on its own on April 6. It didn't violate any policy as YMB is trying to assert.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why did you think I was talking about you? I was talking about Diannaa, the user who started the RfC. -YMB29 (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you were talking to me. I made no indication to make you think that. This area is for closing RFCs and other things. Not invalidating them. Pushing pov does nothing here. Since the RFC is over you have nothing complain about.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is "pushing POV" here? I don't understand what you are talking about. -YMB29 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, you yourself said that it is "highly biased and doesn't represent the dispute". -YMB29 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ 1) must be cited, probably should be attributed. 2/3) no consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2013 in film
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2013 in film (initiated 16 January 2014)? See the subsection Talk:2013 in film (initiated 8 March 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that WP:FILMYEAR has been approved, I believe this matter to be closed.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ per FILMYEAR. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John Schlossberg
Request closure help. Thank you. -- <font color="#006A4E">Green <font color="#009933">C 15:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  16:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of Bohemian Club members
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Bohemian Club members (initiated 20 March 2014)? See Talk:List of Bohemian Club members, where the question was: "Ought this list include Mark Twain?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Was started as a topic on 20 March, and an RfC on inclusion of Mark Twain as an "honorary member" in the list was formally started on 21 March. Closure would be quite appreciated, as the disputants seem to be firm stick-holders.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In the reality-based world, the RfC in question was of Bohemian Club members&diff=606321817&oldid=606320876 started on the 29th of April. It's an "eensy" bit odd to give such a misleading impression regarding how long the RfC has been running -- not least for the person who started the RfC to do so.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Before accusing anyone of lying, I gently suggest you look at the talk page history: of Bohemian Club members&diff=600631492&oldid=600618743 has the Legobot addition of that RfC.  On 21 March, as I stated.  Sheesh - it would be nice if you actually got this right when I specified the actual date of that RfC.  Collect (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is already listed on the RFCs to close list (see above). Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Number   5  7  11:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

RfD on foreign-language redirects from Pokémon names
Consensus is clear—unanimous, actually—to delete the redirects nominated at Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 5. Normally I'd do an IAR involved closure on this sort of thing, but since I've also requested permission to delete other redirects like this as I come across them, I'd rather leave it to another admin to endorse that idea or not. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  13:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason, why you didn't delete the redirects? Armbrust The Homunculus 14:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, lack of short-term memory? All done now though. Number   5  7  14:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * . Armbrust The Homunculus 14:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Two In the News/"Recurring" proposals
Options are to add the the list of recurring items (WP:ITN/R) or to not not list. No special knowledge of ITN is required - just ordinary assessment of consensus based on strength of argument. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items
 * Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items
 * ✅ Number   5  7  10:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Tq
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Tq (initiated 16 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  11:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not (initiated 24 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 46. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cskumaar/Maruthuvar community
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cskumaar/Maruthuvar community (initiated 31 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted, as no clear consensus (only two participants with different suggestions). Can others please contribute. Thanks, Number   5  7  15:48, 14 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 17
No new comments have been posted for a week and a half. I guess that's not so long objectively, but still, would like to see this move along. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

===WT:AFC (Where to direct new AFC submissions)=== Request closure of this proposal/RFC. Discussion has been closed twice before at 8/0 and 14/1 consensuses and now stands at a 23/1 consensus for changing the output of the Article Wizard's "Create to Articles for Creation" action to point at the draft namespace. Multiple editors have already observed the very obvious consensus that exists in this consensus building discussion with the opposition being lead by a singular editor. Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Friendly ping for to be aware that I am requesting early termination of the RFC under very obvious consensus conditions. Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The technical concerns I have raised have not been answered, the RfC is barely a few days old and no where near the 30-day RfC standard, and the developer that was specifically requested to comment on the RfC has not done so as of yet. Three good reasons why this RfC should not be closed prematurely.  NODEADLINE implies there is no rush to get this done before the other technical requirements to make it work properly and not cause more of a backlog and confusion than the current proposal would result in and those things need fixing first.  I'm not opposed to the consensus to get the project moved into the Draft namespace, I'm probably the leading proponent for it, as long as all the pieces required are done in an appropriate order.  Putting all drafts, past, present, or future into Draft namespace before all of the technical aspects of the namespace are fixed will cause all kinds of doom and gloom and crash the internet, send satellites plummeting to Earth, shut down power grids globally, ..., or something like that... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 19:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be really helpful if someone uninvolved could take the time to look this over and decide if it's ready to be closed or not. There is a fair amount of reading involved. I have strong opinions about this myself, so I can't do it. As I understand it, RFC's can be of any length; 30 days is not a standard, only a software default upper limit so that RFC templates aren't accidentally left forever on a talk page through neglect. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by MSGJ. Number   5  7  14:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 9
Could someone please look at this and close it? Its been relisted once already, and only has 2 editors (including myself) discussing. The Common's version of this template was deleted for the same reasons. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Armbrust The Homunculus 11:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) (initiated 26 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote: In discussions related to the titling or stylizing of names of people, especially for BLPs, the subject's preference often comes up. See, for example, the current discussion at Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster). The principle has been applied previously to articles such as danah boyd and k.d. lang, and in the case of lowercase names, this is already MOS-supported; see Manual of Style/Capital letters. However, there doesn't seem to be general language recommending weight be given to a subject's preference in such determinations. I believe limited language to this effect could be beneficial in future discussions, and would follow the spirit of WP:BLP (this would apply to all biographies, though it might be of more interest for BLPs). Offhand, I know libraries give a great deal of weight to subject preference in authority work. I'm not sure what other fields deal with such cases. Journalism, perhaps?

The major caveat worth noting in any language inserted into NCP is that the subject's preference needs to be supported by other usage as well. So any assertions that a particular person prefers a particular form of name need to be supported, rather than accepted at face value. The language I have in mind would resemble that at Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), though whether it would be better to say subject preference should be "considered" or "preferred" is something that I'm willing to leave to discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * <deL>This discussion is still ongoing and contentious. The original RfC has concluded (there's no RfC tag there any longer), with the result that various different proposals have been made and a new RfC is being formulated.  There's nothing for a WP:AN/RFC admin to do there yet.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Objection rescinded.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  11:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Belhaven/Pantego Tornado
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  14:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kaohsiung Municipal Sin Jhuang Primary School
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  14:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Australian Chamber of Commerce in Paraguay
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  16:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Politics
Inactive for a couple of weeks now. Consensus unclear. Would an experienced editor please review and close? (Please note that one of the voters, Gaijin42, was topic banned from gun-control related articles on 30 April 2014.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ <font color="FF6600"><font face="Times New Roman">Sunrise  <font size="1.8">(talk)  20:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
12 editors in favor of ban (a couple of users even wanted a full site plan), only three editors against it, and that includes the editor in question, and the discussion has died out. An admin should end the discussion and institute the topic ban. JDDJS (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  10:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, if you close a topic ban discussion than you need to log it at WP:RESTRICT (have done for you). Armbrust The Homunculus 12:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/K-1 World MAX 2013 World Championship Tournament Quarter Final in Foshan
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  12:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Patricia Holmes (diplomat)
has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:NFL Europe
This is a proposal to merge World League of American Football into NFL Europe - 5 agreed, 1 opposed, but it may need an admin to decide on the merge. Demokra (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 12:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Politics
Inactive for about three weeks now. Consensus unclear. Would an experienced editor please review and close? Lightbreather (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  11:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Simon Collins
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Simon Collins (initiated 15 January 2014; see Talk:Simon Collins, which was initiated 15 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote: Recently, the article was expanded with an assortment of new information. There is a debate regarding which of it should stay and which of it should not be included. If someone aside from those already involved could evaluate and provide a neutral opinion, that would be greatly appreciated.

The content in question can be found in the following version of the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Collins&oldid=590649123 Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ I closed it, but the closure has been reverted by one of the participants who was opposed the direction of the closure. Someone might want to review this. Number   5  7  13:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Your close looked like a good interpretation to me. I manually re-added your close, as it shouldn't have been removed simply because an involved editor disagreed. I manually re-added it because the page was manually archived to Talk:Simon Collins/Archive 1 where the closed RFC is now.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Herzegovinian Radio Festival
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  13:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gun control
The matter under discussion is contentious. The RfC has been open one week, discussion has slowed, and the consensus seems clear, but I would like an uninvolved editor to close it. Lightbreather (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:British Isles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:British Isles (initiated 16 February 2014)? There are several proposals in that section including the subsection Talk:British Isles. Please see also the discussion about closure at Talk:British Isles. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No formal closure appears to be necessary. Out of four sections to the RfC (the fourth being the "Closure" section), three have already been closed by editors of the article. The one that remains open (the first one) contains only "Comments" and no !votes; the supports/opposes are in the second section (Talk:British Isles) which has been closed. <font color="FF6600"><font face="Times New Roman">Sunrise  <font size="1.8">(talk)  09:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing a discussion isn't the same as placing it between a archivetop and archivebottom tag. It needs a summary of the discussion too. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The RfC was closed weeks ago by a participant, evidently in the understanding that there was no consensus for the proposed change,  as is clearly expressed in the meta-discussion about that closure, and consequently the change in the article has not been made. There have been no further edits on the matter as far as I can see, and no attempts to revive the discussion, so the closure appears to have been generally accepted by those involved. That's a valid outcome and I see no reason to add anything to it now, so I will treat this as no longer actionable and will re-archive this request here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And what's the result of the discussion? asked that "an experienced editor assess the consensus", which still didn't happened. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion is clearly expressed in its final section. The participants in the discussion evidently have seen no problem in recognizing what that result is; that's why they all accepted the closure as it stands, and that's the only thing that counts. For this section to remain here further is a waste of time and unnecessarily channels admins' energy away from those cases that actually do need some action. This one doesn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo (region)
Merge proposal for the two main Kosovo articles. Result seems clear enough, but formal outside closure would be appreciated due to the contentious history of these articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 10
Please disposition: which have all been relisted and have been open for more than one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 10
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 10
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 10
 * ✅ Number   5  7  17:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/International Organization for a Participatory Society (3rd nomination)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  17:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 33
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming%2FArchive_33&diff=601898184&oldid=601895805 the RfC] at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 33 (initiated 28 February 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Judith Curry was removed and I added again. The previous talk on this was Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_31 and I do not believe there was a consensus for removal. Has that changed or was I wrong or do we need an RfC?" A close is necessary because this has been discussed repeatedly:
 * Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 29 (initiated 22 October 2012)
 * Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 31 (initiated 9 January 2014)
 * Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 31 (initiated 21 January 2014)
 * Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 33 (initiated 28 February 2014)

Here are several suggestions:
 * Please consider the previous discussions in your close.
 * Please link to the previous discussions in your close so they are all aggregated in one place on the RfC that will determine whether Judith Curry should be kept or removed from the article..
 * Please consider either announcing your closure on the talk page or unarchiving Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 33 and then closing it.

The list currently contains Judith Curry. If your conclusion is no consensus (having not read the discussions, I do not know), please consider whether BLP (specifically Biographies of living persons) results in the material being omitted by default in the absence of a clear consensus to include it. If BLP does not cause the material to be omitted by default, then please consider whether the status quo is to keep or omit the entry. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BLP does indeed default to not include this person, and the evidence for inclusion is distinctly WP:ORish. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue the case here, though I think I'd probably agree with Guy if I did. But I opened a new section at the talk page, because I think it would be unusual to close an archived discussion without mention on the page. One way or another, I agree that it's time to close this matter. Homunq (࿓) 02:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * by, and then unarchived to Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gun control/Archive 15
Would an experienced editor also assess the consensus at the same talk page; see Talk:Gun control/Archive 15 (initiated 16 December 2013)? Previous close request: Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 9  procedurally closed the discussion since a case was open at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. See Nyttend's post at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. The case was closed 30 April 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ It's half a year old, it's buried five pages deep in the archives, it was conducted with dominant participation of several editors who are now topic-banned (and whose opinions therefore, presumably, ought no longer to be considered), and its contents have clearly been superceeded in the meantime by other discussion threads (including two RfCs on related topics on the current talkpage). I can see no benefit in trying to get any legitimate content decision out of that old thread at this stage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

WT:Banning policy
Requesting closure. See discussion for basis. – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be anything to close here. It's a rambling discussion with no real focus, and has been stale for a few days now. Number   5  7  17:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Putting a lid on it and driving a final nail into the coffin would help. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie (initiated 7 April 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie, where the opening poster wrote: " is a large edit in an article subject to WP:BLP. Is there a consensus for inclusion of that material?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ NE Ent 10:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Tim Huelskamp
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tim Huelskamp (initiated 3 May 2014)? There have been no comments since 17 May 2014. The question posed was: "Is it appropriate to include the term "asshole factor" in this bio?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ NE Ent 10:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Narendra Modi
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Narendra Modi (initiated 13 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Does the following statement needs to be reworded in the lead section ' his administration has also been criticized for failing to make a significant positive impact upon the human development of the state ' to 'Views about the human development under his administration remains mixed.'" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ <font color="FF6600"><font face="Times New Roman">Sunrise  <font size="1.8">(talk)  03:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Nazism sidebar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Nazism sidebar (initiated 20 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 13:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:False flag
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:False flag (initiated 6 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Unified Modeling Language
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Unified Modeling Language (initiated 9 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 12:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014 and Talk:Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014 (initiated 8 April 2014) and Talk:Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014 (initiated 10 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this page contain an Infobox, as is generally standard for elections?" Please consider making the later section a subsection of the first section. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 12:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2013–14 Thai political crisis
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2013–14 Thai political crisis (initiated 18 May 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "User:Paul 012 has proposed to merge 2014 attack on Thai protest camp into 2013–14 Thai political crisis." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ <font color="FF6600"><font face="Times New Roman">Sunrise  <font size="1.8">(talk)  23:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (initiated 14 May 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 11:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:TOC hidden
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:TOC hidden (initiated 4 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) (initiated 4 May 2014)? If there is consensus for the change, please implement the change and link to your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 11:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 112
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 112 (initiated 7 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Green
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Green (initiated 3 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  23:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Coat of arms of Mauritius
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Coat of arms of Mauritius (initiated 11 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 11:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DVMt/Sandbox 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DVMt/Sandbox 2 (initiated 15 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  23:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Josh Alury
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Josh Alury (initiated 15 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  23:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Athir a.k.a Slingshot
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Athir a.k.a Slingshot (initiated 15 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  23:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sweetdips3
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sweetdips3 (initiated 13 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  23:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deepak Kumar Himanshu
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deepak Kumar Himanshu (initiated 13 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  23:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ramooki/sandbox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ramooki/sandbox (initiated 13 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jessiex23
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jessiex23 (initiated 12 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mhlegal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mhlegal (initiated 11 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daredevil1234/Draft
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daredevil1234/Draft (initiated 11 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bandy boy/säkerhetskopia/Alberget 4A
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bandy boy/säkerhetskopia/Alberget 4A (initiated 9 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Slmark63
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Slmark63 (initiated 9 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  23:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Morris Pusha
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Morris Pusha (initiated 9 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅.  TLSuda  (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your MfD closures, ! Cunard (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Δ/Sandbox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Δ/Sandbox (initiated 7 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  23:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Canadian Paul/Olympics
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Canadian Paul/Olympics (initiated 7 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  23:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Billuconn11/Wild Adirondack Cow
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Billuconn11/Wild Adirondack Cow (initiated 5 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  23:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Coupay
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/NIRDA
has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)