Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 13

 2014 entries 

Talk:File Allocation Table
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:File Allocation Table (initiated 21 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Now archived at Talk:File Allocation Table/Archive 6. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment some further discussion now at the end of Talk:File Allocation Table. ~KvnG 14:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ and commented at article talk page. Bellerophon talk to me  18:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 5
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 5 (initiated 14 June 2014)? Please consider the RfC at Wikipedia talk:User access levels/Archive 2 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bellerophon talk to me  18:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Admin to close a discussion please?
A discussion has been on going now since MARCH on a page: Talk:BBC One and I have sent messages to other people to try and get them to respond etc, but after four months only seven people have past comment, with 80% opposing the idea. Can an admin please close the discussion, so we can move on for this? The Idea was first suggested by a user who is now banned for socks. Thanks --Crazyseiko (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Moved from AN/I. Origamiteis out right now 00:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ (NAC) Bellerophon talk to me  06:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 6
This TfD about a proposal on deleting distinguish is met with almost universal opposition. With reference to WP:Snow, I believe that it is appropriate for any uninvolved admin to close this discussion. The merger part will be brought to the discussion page of the template.Forbidden User (talk)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Template test cases notice
Requesting an administrator or other uninvolved editor to close Template talk:Template test cases notice as there are only two editors that have commented on it, and there appears to be a consensus, but since I'm involved and this requested move has been sitting around for two weeks (twice the required one week). Thanks. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually this need to be closed by an admin, because the template is move protected. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Any uninvolved editor can close the discussion. If they close it as move, that can be requested at RPP or with a db-g6. If they close it as don't move, then no admin was needed anyways. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 11:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 07:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Charles Michel Bédard
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed and deleted by Joe Decker Piguy101 (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Character notability (for full articles)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Character notability (for full articles) (initiated 22 May 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "What are the requirements for video game characters to be considered notable enough that they should be allowed to have their own articles? Ideally, the results will be as specific as possible as this has been argued quite hotly for a long time." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Formerip (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Amir Yazdan
It was opened on May 20 by me and is quite a confusing discussion. Check the history of Amir Yazdan for some more understanding. Piguy101 (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strange. You started an AfD with a Keep vote? And you didn't follow WP:GTD. Okay I see what happened now.-- Auric   talk  19:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have relisted the AfD. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User pages
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages (initiated 29 May 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like already has. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was spooky. I was just coming to say the same thing... Bellerophon talk to me  18:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 's change based on the RfC has since been reverted by . Could another user take a look with an eye to (?re-)closing the discussion and ensuring the consensus version of the page is implemented? Thanks, – xeno talk 15:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted for procedural reasons. The closure should not be done by someone involved in the voting. The closure should be done properly by an unininvolved administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * reverted my reversion and left a message on my talk page offering to re-close the RfC reaching the same result. He said that alternatively and in a somewhat loaded fashion, "Of course, if you'd prefer to avoid procedure for procedure's sake, you could just let it go." My only question of others at this point before I respond to RexxS is whether, given the nature of the RfC, it should be closed by an administrator rather than an experienced editor (RexxS appears experienced to me, although I don't think I know him). I imagine some think I'm being a pain in the ass over this whole thing, and it may be so as I can be a pain in the ass, but by drawing this out a little longer, at least I'm meeting their expectations. While awaiting the barbs, I'm going back to my regular work, which is more satisfying and certainly less stressful than this.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a matter of procedure, this noticeboard really isn't the right place to discuss the merits of a close. It's just for requesting closes. (I have no opinion about the RfC.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reclosed by RexxS and "Your close is fine." from Bbb23. Cunard (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 26
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 26? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin review Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (initiated 14 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Handled by and . Cunard (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth II
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Iatrogenesis
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the subsections of Talk:Iatrogenesis (initiated 5 June 2014):
 * Talk:Iatrogenesis
 * Talk:Iatrogenesis
 * Talk:Iatrogenesis

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, nearly every participant in the discussion is in agreement on the category's new name. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

3 RfDs from June
These RFDs need either a closure or a relist. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 27
 * ✅. Jenks24 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 29
 * ✅ — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 14:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 30
 * ✅ — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 14:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2014 July
Would an admin assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2014 July (initiated 4 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Many, many MfDs left
I spent an hour closing some, plenty left to go around (about 10 days' worth). Will come back to finish it off later if nobody has gotten around to it. (No need to list them ALL here, though.) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I finished July 2 through July 8 minus a few from July 6. There are still plenty to do. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think that I've cleaned out the backlog through right now. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Except Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NAYEE BRAHMINS. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch. ✅.  TLSuda  (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and, for reducing the 19-day backlog at MfD down to zero. Cunard (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rajesultanpur Ambedkar Nagar
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rajesultanpur Ambedkar Nagar (initiated 24 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucien86
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucien86 (initiated 25 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

29 June 2014 MfDs
Would an admin (or admins) assess the consensus at: Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM) states: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:HHAINES0001/Adam Flowers
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nothingatall666/HarryButcher
 * 3) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ucffan/John Russell
 * 4) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Invertedtriangle/sandbox
 * 5) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jawartak/Fairbooks.com
 * 6) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Shivasssv
 * 7) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bombay Artillery Regiment
 * All by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

30 June 2014 MfDs
Would an admin (or admins) assess the consensus at: Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM) states: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raghava kashyap
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EveLam27/Evelyn Lambert
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yasarmaya
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hloaroo/Brad Olsen
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uefa lb/Ali Mohamad-Eid Aoun
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Architecttylee
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Farhanshafique
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

1 July 2014 MfDs
Would an admin assess the consensus at: Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM) states: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nickerberger/Broad Topics
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kevin Galalae
 * 3) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Soniacourge
 * All by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

2 July 2014 MfDs
Would an admin assess the consensus at: Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM) states: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nimisha sanaye/Minerals and metals trading corporation
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Titanic1000/Rosedale Products
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gattermeier/Terra Chocolates
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Skhodjaev/sandbox
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:L.H.A Kakoro
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rowena123/GreatLittleTradingCompany
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KremaGroup/The Krema Products Company
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Takeouts ska
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

3 July 2014 MfDs
Would an admin assess the consensus at: Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM) states: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Air South East
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Arikairuk
 * 3) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NMAR7510/Pro-Audio-Warehouse.com
 * 4) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rennab77/Impact Networking
 * 5) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:WebVentures2000
 * 6) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gailziggy/Enter your new article name here
 * 7) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Npujar
 * 8) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rexpeng/sandbox
 * All by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

4 July 2014 MfDs
Would an admin assess the consensus at: Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM) states: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Arael2/wikislice-economics
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rulge/Seven Levels of Consciousness Model
 * 3) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Phoenixsniderpower/sandbox
 * 4) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ashley Morris Biography
 * 5) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daveverbosky/Sandbox
 * 6) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mardi11/Discounted Travels
 * 7) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khatranac/"v-reserve"
 * 8) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jenny i2002/Marty Mizrahi
 * All by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

5 July 2014 MfDs
Would an admin assess the consensus at: Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM) states: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sanjitvs/Gajanan Associates
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TRUiSTgives/sandbox
 * 3) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sonuvermazx02
 * 4) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AndreasPDemetriou/List of Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Cyprus
 * 5) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jravia/sandbox
 * 6) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jravia
 * All by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

6 July 2014 MfDs
Would an admin assess the consensus at: Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM) states: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vishwagna
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Niyoginayeebramhana
 * 3) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NAYEE BRAHMINS
 * 4) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Brahmin nayee
 * 5) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colemanchris/Paul West (science fiction author)
 * 6) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jeffballweg/Joan Ballweg
 * 7) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jenniekellett/John Shaw
 * 8) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Govindrahul/Sant Brahma Deo Upadhyay
 * 9) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zia ul Haq Babar
 * 10) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Masechaba26
 * 11) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JanaDixon/ipodmeister
 * 12) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BetsyBall/arthistory
 * 13) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharadsingh23/sandbox
 * 14) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aroratrishneet
 * 15) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AenglscriptEnlight/environmental-computer combined technological development
 * 16) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Erlinfl/Create 36 mm 3d
 * All by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

7 July 2014 MfDs
Would an admin assess the consensus at: Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM) states: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PankajPatidarRock
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Justis Bratt
 * 3) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wholey
 * 4) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Skgargeldeco
 * 5) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Giggle98
 * All by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam Warren UK
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam Warren UK (initiated 8 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

9 July 2014 MfDs
Would an admin assess the consensus at: Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM) states: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pete Phatbuds
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Houlitv
 * 3) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Brianfholmes
 * 4) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrator review/Eric Ouellet - Wally
 * 5) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse162.199.216.188
 * 6) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abusesciencewatcher
 * 7) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LowellJosephGallin
 * All by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

10 July 2014 MfDs
Would an admin assess the consensus at: Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM) states: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Connor912
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jim-Siduri
 * 3) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Browneyes1308/Derek Dorr
 * 4) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ransomlove/myCodeLive!
 * All by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

11 July 2014 MfDs
Would an admin assess the consensus at: Many of the MfDs have received few or no comments. Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM) states: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Themanvils
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Llamabun23
 * 3) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thegreenboys
 * 4) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:OxygenBand
 * 5) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hennessey (Denton Band)
 * 6) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:White.noiz.band
 * 7) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pastmidnight
 * 8) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JPearlMerlin
 * 9) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Contractorumbrella/sandbox
 * 10) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Disputed
 * All by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gaurrupesh
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gaurrupesh (initiated 12 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Honorary degree
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Honorary degree (initiated 2 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  19:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pahlavi dynasty
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pahlavi dynasty (initiated 8 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this article use the Template:Infobox Former Country, or Template:Infobox royal house?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 20:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pahlavi dynasty
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pahlavi dynasty (initiated 20 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: I propose that the article named House of Pahlavi should be turned back into a redirect which points to Pahlavi dynasty. The two terms are synonymous.

The article name 'House of Pahlavi' served as a redirect from 2007 to 2011 when User:TRAJAN 117 made it into an article. I think the content can easily be hosted at Pahlavi dynasty so that the reader is not confused. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 20:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Israelis in India
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Israelis in India (initiated 16 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'd say that a listing here might not have been necessary though.  Sunrise    (talk)  20:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263 (initiated 1 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sunrise    (talk)  20:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John Anthony Brooks
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John Anthony Brooks (initiated 17 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "At what point, if at all, should Brooks' ethnicity be mentioned in the lede (i.e. is he German-American, American, or a soccer player who played for America)? The relevant wikipedia policy is WP: OPENPARA." Please consider the related discussion Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive202 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Formerip (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:East Germany
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:East Germany (initiated 6 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "This is call for third opinions concerning the name of the article on East Germany same has to be said about the article on West Germany. In the latter even the infobox shows flaws." A later poster wrote: "Extensive previous discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  13:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:United States Senate election in Virginia, 2014
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States Senate election in Virginia, 2014 (initiated 8 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should Robert Sarvis be included in the infobox?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Formerip (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dave Brat/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Dave Brat/Archive 1 (initiated 13 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the line Brat attributed this electoral victory to God, who he said “acted through people on my behalf.” be removed from the section 'Republican Primary?' For ease of bookkeeping, please use the discussion section for prolonged discussion, and keep your opinions succinct and correctly placed in support/oppose." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There were two sections on the page with the same name (the RfC being under the second), so I made a trivial edit to the first one so the link goes to the right place.  Sunrise    (talk)  20:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Formerip (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout (initiated 14 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Violet (color)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Violet (color) (initiated 14 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  15:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy (initiated 6 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  11:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) (initiated 14 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "When titling Wikipedia articles, should the Icelandic letters eth (ð) and thorn (þ) be used?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  11:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oscar López Rivera
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oscar López Rivera (initiated 15 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Formerip (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Georgism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Georgism (initiated 29 May 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should Georgism be defined as including support for land taxes, land rents, capital land gains, pollution fees, location taxes, and fees for 'use and abuse of the land-commons' in general?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Formerip (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Georgism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Georgism (initiated 16 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Are the list of taxes associated with Pigovian tax and other taxes properly included under Georgism? What taxes should be directly linked to 'Georgism' in this article and using what criteria?" The participants indicated that this issue has been raised on the talk page repeatedly over the past several months, so a close to resolve the months-long dispute would be helpful. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Formerip (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Romeo and Juliet
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Romeo and Juliet (initiated 1 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Landscape art
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Landscape art (initiated 22 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 17 and Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 18
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 17 (initiated 9 June 2014) and Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 18 (initiated 18 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Formerip (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Steven Emerson and Talk:Steven Emerson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Steven Emerson (28 June 2014) and Talk:Steven Emerson (5 July 2014)? Please consider combining the two sections by making the newer section a subsection of the older one and assessing the consensus in both sections. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sunrise    (talk)  19:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft talk:Half-Life 3
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Draft talk:Half-Life 3 (initiated 16 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Until now Half-Life 3 has only been written about on the Half-Life (series) article. As a game which hasn't been officially confirmed by Valve (creators of the series), arguments have been made that it should not yet have its own article per WP:CRYSTAL. This draft article has been created to test the waters and see if the large amount of coverage the potential game has had is enough to support its own article. An inconclusive discussion can be found at WikiProject Video Games. The question here is a fairly straightforward one: Should Half-Life 3 have its own article based on this draft, or should it remain in the series article?" Please consider the related discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 105 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pune techie murder case
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pune techie murder case (initiated 12 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bellerophon talk to me  08:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pune techie murder case
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pune techie murder case (initiated 14 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bellerophon talk to me  08:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Roosh V and Talk:Roosh V
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Roosh V (2 June 2014) and Talk:Roosh V (11 June 2014)? The opening poster of the RfC wrote: "Question - Should the term 'sex tourist' be used to describe Roosh V in the lead sentence (see here for current wording using term)? Please see Talk:Roosh V for previous discussion including use of term by other sources and discussions of BLP policy." Please consider combining the two sections by making the newer section a subsection of the older one and assessing the consensus in both sections. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The second was by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The first was reviewed during the close of the second and so has also been . Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Đurđevdan uprising
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Đurđevdan uprising (initiated 6 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I'm requesting comment from other editors with regard to what should be the title and scope of this article. We've had a rather unproductive series of discussions on this talk page, and I'd appreciate a few fresh pairs of eyes. I'd like to know if people who read history books about WWII in Yugoslavia remember hearing about this revolt as such, about the resulting massacre (whether as a consequence of the revolt or as such), and whatever other aspect of this story seems relevant to the title and scope of the article. Thanks in advance." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. But note that this has not been a conventional close, because I am concerned that the article may fall short of WP standards from an ethical POV. Please feel free to take a look if you want. Formerip (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mexico
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mexico (initiated 12 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "The purpose of this RfC is to establish what weight if any should be assigned to the source "Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI" by Francisco Lizcano Fernandez, and how it should be represented." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - No consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anarcho-capitalism (initiated 7 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - See RFC for closure results. Next step is up to editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Chris McDaniel
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chris McDaniel (initiated 10 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - No consensus due to blanket nature of RFC. Create a separate RFC for any specific critical item.  Also, note that article is a BLP and so is subject to discretionary sanctions.  Robert McClenon (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) (initiated 21 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As it is approaching its 30th day since opening (opened on 21st June), I suppose it's the appropriate time for closure.Forbidden User (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Formerip (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons
This has gone on for months, with no consensus to change the guideline, but now proponents of that change are falsely claiming that failure to change consensus amounts somehow to a lack of consensus on what the guideline actually says and means, which is simply not true. It's time this was put to bed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been over a week since anyone commented further on this failed proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * An editor has provided a handy and seemingly-to-me neutral summary of the sprawling debate there: User:Sillyfolkboy/Resources/MOS:SportsFlag.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is this considered a failed proposal? The majority of the !votes are for Support, which is to permit greater use of flags.  I was looking at closing with a consensus of Weak Support.  Please explain why this is a failed proposal.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like 19 supports to 18 opposes (or thereabouts - I only did a speedy count). It might be possible to tease a weak support out of that, but it doesn't look to me like it would be very easy. Formerip (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends on the respective strength of the arguments; I participated in the discussion, and I saw several that would not stand up to any form of scrutiny - some even misunderstood the question! Number   5  7  22:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't actually read through, so I can't say. I guess I'm just making the point that it shouldn't be closed as a victory squeaked purely on numbers. On the other hand, it's not actually "failed" until it's closed. Formerip (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - No consensus, essentially a tie. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason, why only the "General discussion" section was closed and the other sub-sections were completely left out. They are part of the discussion too. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Closer error corrected. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

3 TfDs
These TFDs need either a closure or a relist. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 22
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 24
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 24
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 21:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that I am closing about 95% of the TfDs right now, and it would be awesome if I could get some help :) Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  20:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Blue Army (Poland)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Blue Army (Poland) (initiated 14 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Not a dubious source.  May be in article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Blue Army (Poland)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Blue Army (Poland) (initiated 16 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - See closing notes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk: Cold fusion
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk: Cold fusion? There are two parts to the RFC? First, should cold fusion experiments be identified as often being categorized as pathological science? Second, which of the four categories defined in WP:ARBPS should be considered applicable to cold fusion? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  15:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   20:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) (initiated 15 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - No consensus on either proposal, both of which have tired !votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor/VisualEditor RfC 2014 part 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at VisualEditor/VisualEditor RfC 2014 part 1 (initiated 7 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "This request for comment asks the community what additional changes or fixes we want WMF to make before we would consider re-enabling VisualEditor under a set of conditions that we could specify through a later RfC such as VisualEditor/2014 RFC or User:Pine/drafts/VisualEditor default state 2014 part 2." Based on the discussion's comments, it might have to be closed as "no consensus", "insufficient participation", or "this RFC is premature". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've asked if this needs closing. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/VisualEditor RfC 2014 part 1, an editor wrote: "I don't think this RfC has started yet, so I'm confused as to how it could be closed… You're responding to the discussion about whether to start an RfC." I requested a close for the sparsely attended RfC mainly for archival purposes so there is a result for the opening poster's proposal. Even if the result is "no consensus", "insufficient participation", or "this RFC is premature". If the discussion is paused right now but will be continued at a later time, then a closure might not be helpful. Feel free to make the final determination on whether this should be closed. If you believe a closure would not be helpful right now, I withdraw this closure request. Cunard (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it up to the participants; anyone who was watchlisting the page saw my offer. No responses yet. - Dank (push to talk) 10:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No responses yet, so they're probably not looking for a closing process. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Category talk:Antisemitism
Could a brave administrator have a look at this RfC, initiated June 23, and try to evaluate the consensus? I'll warn you that the close is likely to be controversial based on comments to date. Discussion fizzled out about a week ago, but then LegoBot came by to remove the expired RfC tag and got some users up in arms again. Ivanvector (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅   Sandstein   20:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2014 Spring, Texas shooting
Not sure if this is the right place, but I was sent here to see if an admin could look at this article that was put up for deletion over a week ago. Benbuff91 20:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅--Mackensen (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 insurgency in Donbass
Would an administrator please assess consensus and close the requested move discussion at Talk:2014 insurgency in Donbass? RGloucester — ☎ 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:2014 insurgency in Donbass is the link. VandVictory (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19
This has been open for 10 days with no current activity. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/History of the Department of English at the University of Groningen
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (initiated 12 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 43. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Not possible to determine consensus because the formatting of the RFC did not encourage !votes, and there were no !votes, only discussion. Closed without consensus.  Recommend a new RFC with Survey and Threaded Discussion sections.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverted with the same reason as the one just bellow. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (initiated 20 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Not possible to determine consensus without a Survey section for !votes and a separate Threaded Discussion section, and there were no !votes. Closed without consensus.  Another editor is advised to open a new RFC on the same topic with a Survey section. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Closure was reverted with the edit summary "If you can't figure out the result when there are no "!votes" labeled for you, then please don't try to close it.". Armbrust The Homunculus 06:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the revert was valid. To close the discussion as "no consensus" is one thing, but to do so on the reasoning that consensus does not exist because the RfC lacks !votes is fallacious. Extensive discussion is, by definition, the most effective way to determine consensus. Bellerophon <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#9966CC;">talk to me  10:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
This discussion has been open for over a month now well within the span for an RfC. I am requesting closure here as it involves a guideline related discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2 × 2 real matrices
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2 × 2 real matrices (Merger proposal initiated February 2014).Rgdboer (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge discussion closed.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  12:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 14
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 14 (initiated 13 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I am considering putting up a proposal to require that all schools and colleges be subject to the exact same standards as any other topic, specifically significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to be considered notable." Is there a consensus that such a proposal would be a good one to submit to the community in a more widely advertised RfC? There is a draft proposal in the subsection Village pump (idea lab). Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * - Neither of these sections has been formally discussed in a way that permits consensus to be evaluated. If there is a desire to change the current guidelines, a properly formatted RFC should be published.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the revert mentioned at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 13 and the comment here, I think this is a properly formatted RfC where consensus can be assessed. My main reason for requesting a closure is to resolve the question: "Is there a consensus that such a proposal would be a good one to submit to the community in a more widely advertised RfC?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * per . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) (initiated 2 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Thompson (Aryan Brotherhood)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Thompson (Aryan Brotherhood) (initiated 16 June 2014)? See Talk:Michael Thompson (Aryan Brotherhood) (initiated 16 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "A large amount of references were added to the article this am today. What is anyone's opinion on whether or not any reader can actually get to any of these materials to read and check the references that are cited inline in the article?" If there is consensus to remove the references, please consider doing so. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. But I didn't remove anything. I see that as being the job of editors active on the article. Formerip (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is fine with me. Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Daniel Amen
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Daniel Amen (initiated 2 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should a list of journal articles written by Daniel Amen be used in his biography?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Formerip (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Academi
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Academi (initiated 29 May 2014)? The previous close was reverted here. The previous closure request is at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 12. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sunrise    (talk)  19:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll (initiated 5 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Formerip (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Germany
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Germany (initiated 21 June 2014)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:Germany/Archive 21 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan (initiated 1 July 2014)? Please consider Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan/Archive 1 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Formerip (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sunburn
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sunburn (initiated 27 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this be our lead image?" (Not safe for work note: The discussion contains nudity.) Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. NorthAmerica1000 04:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person (initiated 25 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:YesAllWomen
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:YesAllWomen (initiated 20 June 2014)? Please consider Talk:YesAllWomen/Archive 2, Talk:YesAllWomen/Archive 3, and Talk:YesAllWomen/Archive 3 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 47
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 47 (initiated 27 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by S Marshall. Number   5  7  10:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) (initiated 29 June 2014)? Please consider the earlier discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:UK Independence Party
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:UK Independence Party (initiated 22 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong to article lower-quality statuses
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong to article lower-quality statuses (initiated 21 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 30
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 30? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 18:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Frozen (2013 film)
Met universal opposition within hours. Please close per WP:SNOW.Forbidden User (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 19:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Geographic reference
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Geographic reference (initiated 16 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should Template:Geographic reference remain as a single template or should each of the separate citations be put into a separate template?" Please consider Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 24 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Template was deleted following a TFD, and thus this discussion has gone with it. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Great power
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Great power (initiated 28 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "is India referred to as a great power? and should it be included in the section 'Aftermath of the Cold War' thought it already is icluding in the next section below 'Emerging powers'" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Damaged Lady
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Damaged Lady (initiated 26 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Note:Starting on a specific relevant article page, may need a further RFC with a refined question on some China/Korea/Japan or Song or Title guideline page after wards depending on progress. Question 1 regarding English approximations of Korean Japanese Chinese titles: Should Korean, Japanese and Chinese, songs and albums where (condition 1) a clear English title is not used on cover artwork, and (condition 2) translated English versions only can be found in html sources, blogs and listings, and not consistently in English printed books, be considered an exception to WP:MUSIC title guidelines which are designed for songs and albums where a clear Latin-alphabet (e.g. English, Spanish, French) title exists, and defer to the policy objectives of WP:CRITERIA which requires recognizability and as a result in all cases base names (e.g. Damaged Lady) should redirect to a recognizable title giving artist name such as Damaged Lady (Kara song) or Can't Be A Lady (Kara song) (technically this is possible: see Harusame which redirects to Japanese destroyer Harusame (1937)). Question 2 regarding Latin-script romanizations of Korean Japanese Chinese titles: Likewise in all cases where a song or album title is a romanization from Korean hangul, Japanese script or Chinese hanzi, then again base names should redirect to a recognizable title giving artist name, e.g. Sugnyeo ga mos dwae (Kara song). The reason why this would be more needed for romanization of Korean, romanization of Japanese, romanization of Chinese is that in all 3 languages there are multiple schemes and in Japanese and Chinese schemes a loss of the meaning given by ideograms." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Duloxetine
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Duloxetine (initiated 28 June 2014)? Please see the subsection Talk:Duloxetine. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal (initiated 30 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the following content be included in this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sunrise    (talk)  01:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict
Initiated on 20 July 2014, it has met universal opposition. Please close per WP:SNOW.Forbidden User (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 05:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Editing policy
Please assess the consensus in this RfC initiated on 15 July 2014, in which there have been no input for over a week.Forbidden User (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sabancı family
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sabancı family (initiated 29 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the following paragraph be included in this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Formerip (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (technical)/Archive 128
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (technical)/Archive 128 (initiated 14 July 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 21:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2014 July
Would an admin assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2014 July (initiated 25 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 05:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (initiated 24 July 2014)? See the subsection Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you link directly to it please? I can't find it. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by User:CambridgeBayWeather on 9 August. It appears that the section header must have been changed since the original filing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * links in this section. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive849
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (initiated 30 July 2014) and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive849 (initiated 30 July 2014) regarding Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * First discussion by . Cunard (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Second ✅. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking
A two-issue proposal, about what it says, and about re-scoping the "See also" sections of articles. Needs consensus determination on these two issues separately, and formal closure. Author of the proposal attempted to close it, but that's procedurally wrong, and the pseudo-close was dismissive and unhelpful. Needs a neutral examination. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 04:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Banning policy
Please assess the consensus in this RfC initiated on 17 July 2014, with the last input on 1 August 2014.Forbidden User (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  00:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bliss (image)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bliss (image) (initiated 16 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion has come to a natural end and parties have dispersed. Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the last comments in the section was "...Currently, vote count is 3-3, tie." An uninvolved editor is needed to determine if one side has a stronger policy-based position or if the result is no consensus. In a recent RfC close, closed Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 5 in favor of one side even though the vote count was also split 3–3.  Cunard (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10
Would an uninvolved admin assess this, please?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 20:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Shock Doctrine
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Shock Doctrine (initiated 20 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:S Marshall. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kozyrev mirror
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kozyrev mirror (initiated 2 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:S Marshall - Conclusion was to reverse the direct / unmerge. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person (initiated 8 July 2014)? See the subsection Template talk:Infobox person (initiated 11 July 2014)? The last comment was made 23 July 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal (initiated 30 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Consensus was for the renaming. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lede of article needs to be revised to be consistent with renaming. OPs are being requested to revise lede in support of rename.   Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Closer rewrote lede and moved article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
An anon started an RfC on 14 July on Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?. I'm hoping we can keep the RfC brief, for obvious reasons. Would an uninvolved editor take a look and decide whether it can be closed yet? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest this RfC should not yet be closed. There has been additional discussion since you placed the above message, including a number of posts from today. Discussion points are valid and on track; I would be inclined to let this RfC continue to run. I don't particularly understand what the "obvious reasons" are to curtail this RfC? Unless, you are referring to the potential distress the discussion might cause to the family; in which case, there is no evidence any such distress exists. <span style="font:small-caps 1.0em Alexandria,serif;color=#00008B;">Bellerophon <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#9966CC;">talk to me  17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The RFC was opened on 14 July 2014. The 30-day period is still running.  Is there a reason why it is important to close it early?  It doesn't appear to be a WP:SNOW case, and if it were, it would not have to be here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church (initiated 23 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- llywrch (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force
Please close and measure the consensus. Thanks, My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 09:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2014 July 27
This review has been open for 12 days, with no activity for the past 3 days. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI
This has been going for some time. User who is subject of proposal has suggested it might be time to close. Might be good if it was closed before it gets archived. I have commented in the discussion. Begoon &thinsp; talk 16:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that a consensus is forming for the ban. Could an admin look at this?  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 21:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just another edit to call an admin to this. It's at the top of the AN/I thread and will be archived soon.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 02:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed.  Go  Phightins  !  03:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Distinguish
30 day period passed. Could an admin assess the consensus and close this RfC?Forbidden User (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ (NAC, but none of the possible outcomes required admin tools to implement, so an admin close was not required.)  Sunrise    (talk)  06:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
Discussion appears to have mostly stopped. While its only been open 12 days, its generated plenty of discussion (250k) for a closer to review, and there have been no new comments in over 2 days. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  19:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cory Gardner
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cory Gardner (initiated 13 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 20:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Deaf culture
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deaf culture (initiated 7 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: While it appears that there is consensus on this page to use the term "deaf person" as many deaf people consider being deaf one of the most important aspects of their being.

People with normal hearing do not see the fact that they can hear as one of the most important aspect of their being and thus "person with normal hearing" or "person with hearing" is better than "hearing person" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism (initiated 13 July 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Template namespace
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace (initiated 18 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Policy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Policy (initiated 23 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cem Özdemir
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cem Özdemir (initiated 7 June 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Cem Özdemir (initiated 11 July 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:West Highland White Terrier
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:West Highland White Terrier (initiated 7 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Since this article is assessed as Good Article, we are more restictive with pictures we add. Should this photograph be added to article or not?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Redhanker/sandbox/Veterans Today
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Redhanker/sandbox/Veterans Today (initiated 15 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Blame
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Blame (initiated 7 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blackwater Outfit
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blackwater Outfit (initiated 7 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Atheodore89/802 Music
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Atheodore89/802 Music (initiated 7 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Soul St Station
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Soul St Station (initiated 7 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ShakespeareFan00/RoadSign Table
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ShakespeareFan00/RoadSign Table (initiated 7 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Werieth/Sandbox
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Werieth/Sandbox (initiated 5 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fullmetal90/Soil(manga)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fullmetal90/Soil(manga) (initiated 5 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Technophant/sandbox
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Technophant/sandbox (initiated 5 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ishantpahwa8
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ishantpahwa8 (initiated August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Complete template list
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Complete template list (initiated August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅  TLSuda  (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cfleetwood/n2n
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cfleetwood/n2n (initiated August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Woodstock Wolf/sandbox/Bill Nye
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Woodstock Wolf/sandbox/Bill Nye (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Batman in film
Been running since November. Opinion is pretty evenly split but an editor is insisting that one side has a consensus by virtue of a majority and proceeding to act accoridngly. Could do with formal closure at this stage. Betty Logan (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Concision razor
Unopposed (except by author) suggestion to userfy-without-redirect another of this editor's failed policy-change proposals masquerading as WP:ESSAYs (cf. userspacing of User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle, and I think there've been others; maybe User:Born2cycle/Rationalized JDLI started that way). Userspacing proposed in April, and re-proposed recently after revisions made the page even more of a mess (see Wikipedia talk:Concision razor). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This will not be formally closed, since it has instead been taken to MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Help talk:Archiving a talk page
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Archiving a talk page (initiated 24 June 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Frozen (2013 film)
Could an uninvolved admin close this unactive but rather heated discussion. I made an attempt to close it but received a threat to AN/I instead. Thank you.Forbidden User (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 4
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 4? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Od Mishehu. Number   5  7  16:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings (initiated 16 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ not done. The RfC had four points and each was marked "done" by a reviewing editor. Perhaps, as per WP:Closing discussions, you could contact the editor who said "done". – S. Rich (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed the RfC by noting the editor's changes. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (initiated 9 July 2014)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by S Marshall. Number   5  7  15:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 4
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 4? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Good Olfactory. Number   5  7  15:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 4
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 4? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Good Olfactory. Number   5  7  15:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 6
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 6? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Good Olfactory. Number   5  7  15:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/July 2014
This RfC was archived last month without being closed. Could an admin assess the consensus and close it? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are asking about an archived discussion. Note that per Help:Archiving a talk page the thread is "immutable". Would it be a good precedent to go to the page and announce a consensus there? I don't think that is what you want. (So basically the old RFC is "closed" with no consensus.) Perhaps you could re-start the discussion, with a link on the current thread to the archived discussion to alert editors about the archive.  With these remarks in mind, this request should be closed as a ❌ not done. – S. Rich (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I confused two threads on related topics. The RfC hasn't been archived.  I'm requesting the correct RfC below. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264 (initiated 10 August 2014)? See the subsection Administrators' noticeboard (initiated 12 August 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Done.  Go  Phightins  !  23:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:"Heroes" (David Bowie song)
Anyone well-versed in English grammar, please evaluate whether there is a consensus at Talk:"Heroes" (David Bowie song) and close if possible. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ rather amusingly by User:S Marshall. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mario Götze
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mario Götze (initiated 15 July 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Mario Götze. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Formerip (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman) (initiated 16 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ – S. Rich (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Autism spectrum
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Autism spectrum (initiated 7 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "A consensus was reached on Talk:Autism, that Wikipedia's style should favor the phrase 'autistic person' rather than 'person with autism'. We apparently need an entirely separate consensus in cases where 'person with autism...' is followed by '...spectrum disorder.'" The discussion referred to in the opening post is Talk:Autism/Archive 15. Please also review the related discussion Talk:Autism (initiated 8 July 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For the RfC close from the first discussion, my additional comment here may be helpful.  Sunrise    (talk)  17:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yaris678 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party (initiated 11 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yaris678 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264 (initiated 15 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 7
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 7 (initiated 14 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ not done. Recommend you set up a new discussion on the talk page, link to the archive, see if there is interest, and then if no further commentary arises ask for a closure here. See: Help:Archiving a talk page. (In the alternative, you can WP:BB and do what you think is best on the article.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussions do not become uncloseable after they are archived. Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The Help guidance says to start a new thread to reopen a discussion and Help says that archived discussions are immutable. (The discussion topic might be closeable, but an archived discussion thread should not be changed.) So the best course of action is to start a new thread, link it to the archive, announce the closure, then hat archive top the thread with a time-stamp. Later the bot will come by and archive the new thread. But what is the point? Some discussions just die out. In which case the practical result is "no consensus". – S. Rich (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unarchived section to Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * RFC is now . – S. Rich (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (initiated 10 August 2014)? See the subsection Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Now archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive850. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unarchived to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to allow for further discussion and closure by an admin. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . Now back in the archive at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851 without closure. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick one: Articles for deletion/Gary Tedman
Can someone please close this before any further damage is done? It was re-listed by User:Rcsprinter123 and I don't think he was wrong to have done so but there are really no opinions in favour of keeping this beyond the article creator who is getting more and more hostile and desperate and two suspected sock/meat puppets with non-policy arguments. The re-listing has had the (entirely unintentional, I'm sure) affect of simply delaying the inevitable and dragging things out for the proponent. At this point we're just propping up his dead horse so he can continue to flog it.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus is pretty clear for delete, but I am not an admin and not sure if this falls under the category of non-admin closure allowed. Kingsindian (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Kingsindian, if you don't have the tools then you can't functionally close it as "delete" and then delete the article. Best to just leave this one to an admin. Cheers,  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WT:Verifiability
This will be with us for awhile, so a close will be helpful going forward. Unscintillating (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * : I don't see any specific policy outcomes for that discussion, as the specific question (3RR exemption) is trivially answered but the broader question (who has the burden of justifying a tag) is not really something one could change by fiat as a result of the RfC, even if the discussion itself pointed us in a specific direction. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 62. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Archiving reverted. IMO, the consensus here is that maintenance tags are article improvements just like any other edit, and are subject to WP:BRD.  There was also an interesting point that editors may choose to start the D in WP:BRD before the R.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gertrude Weaver
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gertrude Weaver (initiated 9 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Spring, Texas shooting
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Spring, Texas shooting (initiated 11 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - No consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Free! (anime)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Free! (anime) (initiated 4 July 2014)? Please consider Talk:Free! (anime) and Talk:Free! (anime) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles (initiated 13 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should MOS:JAPAN continue to require disambiguation for unique place names?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Could an admin assess the consensus and close the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles ? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - consensus is not to require so-called pre-emptive disambiguation. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy (initiated 11 July 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Rough consensus to warn users who have not edited so that they can change username before editing. By the way, bot hasn't yet pulled RFC tag that is more than a month old.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 4
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 4 (initiated 18 July 2014)? See the subsection Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 4. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are asking about an archived discussion. Well, per Help:Archiving a talk page the thread is "immutable". Would it be a good precedent to go to the page and announce a consensus there? I don't think that is what you have in mind. In fact there is a current discussion going on at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. (So basically the old RFC is "closed" with no consensus.) Perhaps you could provide a link on the current thread to the archived discussion to alert editors about the archive.  With these remarks in mind, this request should be closed as a ❌ not done.  – S. Rich (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon for a discussion to be archived before someone gets around to closing it - it wouldn't set a precedent. The discussion does appear to have moved on in this case though, so a formal close might or might not be useful.  Sunrise    (talk)  03:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What you say about archiving is true, and that talk page has a 5 day shut down. The precedent that I'd like to avoid is going back and forth between current and archived discussions, particularly in light of the "mutable" characterization we see in Help. When there is not a new thread open, the better practice is to open a new thread, link to the old archive page, and then ask for closure. – S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussions do not become uncloseable after they are archived. Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The Help guidance says to start a new thread to reopen a discussion and Help says that archived discussions are immutable. (The discussion topic might be closeable, but an archived discussion thread should not be changed.) So the best course of action is to start a new thread, link it to the archive, announce the closure, then hat archive top the thread with a time-stamp. Later the bot will come by and archive the new thread. But what is the point? Some discussions just die out. In which case the practical result is "no consensus". – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unarchived section to Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Formerip (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7
Admin needed to conclude discussion and implement renaming. Consensus is to use "Category:Good articles without topic parameter". – S. Rich (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the close is an easy one but I lack the experience in renaming categories so I will leave this to someone else. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you close it, than I can handle the rest. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed, pinged you in my closure. Thanks for helping. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost done, but should be replaced with , which needs the admin/template editor bit. (I don't have either). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wanna tell me what and where to do it, or make a template-edit-request? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  06:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops. Face-blush.svg It's Article history. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  06:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of sovereign states
Could an uninvolved user please take a look at this discussion? There are four separate questions up for debate: whether three proposed entities meet the inclusion criteria and lastly whether the criteria should be changed to allow for them to be listed. This has been a long running dispute, so I believe it would beneficial if the consensus was formaly assessed and discussion closed by an uninvolved editor. TDL (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  15:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)