Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 14

 2014 entries 

Wikipedia talk:Signatures
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Signatures (initiated 23 June 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Wolverine (character)
Long-winded re-re-rehash that has gone on more than long enough. Note that the essentially identical. concurrent RM at Talk:Hit-Girl (character) has already closed. There's no reason for parties to be allowed to kind of mutually forum-shop on this question any longer at a different page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 04:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

NFCR discussions
Could an uninvolved admin/user with some knowledge of copyright/WP:NFCC take a look at this discussion and make a unbiased close? Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Non-free content review
 * Non-free content review
 * Non-free content review
 * I hacked out #1, slowly heading for 2 and 3. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * When you get the chance, do you think you could come by and maybe make another close or two? Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed the second one with recommendations to reopen separate discussions for two of the images. Would you be able to take care of that for me? I'll try and finish the last one tonight or tomorrow. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As the discussion became stale and the initiator of that original discussion was blocked as a sock. I don't think there will be much further discussion at the moment. There are enough editors who routinely patrol for WP:NFCC violations that if one of them feels discussion is necessary, a new discussion will be opened shortly. Thank you for closing these. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * When closing NFCR discussions, note that you must substitute the {{subst:archive top}} template. If you do not substitute the template, the archival bot will change the wikicode from to rationale in the archive, making it impossible for readers of the archive to see the rationale. The bottom template, archive bottom, doesn't need to be substituted as the archival bot doesn't mess that one up. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ (All three) by .  TLSuda  (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 6
Open since 29 April. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2014 August 16
Could an uninvolved administrator please close this deletion discussion. This discussion was opened after a deletion review which was opened after the. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2014 August 16
Could an uninvolved administrator please close this deletion discussion. This discussion was opened 3 days after I closed about the image. Fortunately this discussion had more participation and a good close would, regardless of outcome, likely stop the nominator from re-nominating a third time in a month. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by .  TLSuda  (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants
Open for over one week, sending now to get ahead of bottleneck. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 16:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Although the editor was blocked for 3 months there is still the outstanding discussion of a topic ban. 12 supports for a topic ban (some wanting to go further), one against, one for a block. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 16:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway (initiated 1 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist) (initiated 28 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 19:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Public opinion on climate change
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Public opinion on climate change (initiated 17 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Public opinion on climate change
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APublic_opinion_on_climate_change&diff=621981732&oldid=621792299 the RfC] at Talk:Public opinion on climate change (initiated 20 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_opinion_on_climate_change&diff=617744913&oldid=617742436 this] Rasmussen poll be included in the article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Edge
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Edge&diff=622764815&oldid=621561088 the RfC] at Talk:The Edge (initiated 26 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&diff=622960534&oldid=620841127 the RfC] at Talk:Donald Trump (initiated 28 July 2014)? Please consider Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7? Please consider Talk:Donald Trump in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:Fayenatic london. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jesus (initiated 25 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sunrise  (talk)  08:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) (initiated 20 July 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Mdann52. Number   5  7  12:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2014 August
Would an admin assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2014 August (initiated 28 August 2014)? Although the discussion has not gone on for seven days, participants have called for a speedy close as wrong venue. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  12:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Economy of Pakistan
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Economy of Pakistan (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed as no consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_aircraft_accidents_and_incidents_resulting_in_at_least_50_fatalities&diff=621699582&oldid=619489071 the RfC] at Talk:List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities (initiated 18 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ oppose Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Arranged marriage
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Arranged marriage (initiated 25 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ no consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road (initiated 28 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 05:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines (initiated 29 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AIdentifying_reliable_sources&diff=623448049&oldid=622674814 the RfC] at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (initiated 29 July 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources, where the proposal is: Are headlines for newspaper articles ever usable as a reliable source for any claim where the headline claim is not found in the body of the newspaper article?

Should this content guideline state:
 * Newspaper headlines are not a reliable source and should not be used Please consider Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 43 (initiated 12 June 2014) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (initiated 8 August 2014)? Other than one comment made 22 August 2014 and and another made 29 August 2014, there has been little participation since 19 August 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Seven Factor
Can someone please close this. The same person (using two different IP addresses) has !voted "keep" three times, refusing to acknowledge that a record of who has contributed to the discussion is kept in the page history, claiming each is a different person. Having edit-warred to keep his three votes in place, they remain the only opinions in favour of retention against a number of policy-based deletion opinions. We are unfairly delaying the inevitable; allowing him to flog a long-dead horse.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  12:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process (initiated 4 August 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Deletion process (initiated 6 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's give this one its 30 days just in case anybody else cares to weigh in. Feel free to ping me if I haven't got to it by Saturday and I'll close it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARetrospective_diagnoses_of_autism&diff=623641451&oldid=623524469 the RfC] at Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism (initiated 1 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (initiated 7 August 2014)? The last comment was made 13 August 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Archived to: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 54 ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✔️ by . HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:VPP
Could an admin impliment WP:VPP please? The RfC has run for close to a month now, and consensus seems clear enough to me. Implimentation notes are included at - please note nothing is needed on the dev side, and all needs to be implimented locally. Please let me know if you need guidence on this. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  07:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Embassy of Mexico, Prague
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/William Burke Belknap
Listed for a month now, consensus (IMO) has moved to keep. – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 21:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Hazara Muslim League
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 21:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Somaly Mam
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Somaly Mam (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  14:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pariah state
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pariah state (initiated 10 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  14:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe) (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  15:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Exo (band)
It started out about one person. However, the comments became more about all other band members, which confused me. I think I need assistance on consensus please. --George Ho (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  13:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

=== RfC on Talk:Treats! === Looking for an admin to close this. It's run for 30 days and is definitely ready for closing KoshVorlon  Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox musical artist
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AInfobox_musical_artist&diff=623454629&oldid=621500857 the RfC] at Template talk:Infobox musical artist (initiated 31 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  17:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 4
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACreation_Museum&diff=621056109&oldid=621046623 the RfC] at Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 4 (initiated 14 July 2014)? The discussion at Talk:Creation Museum indicates that 22 editors participated in the discussion. Because of the discussion's complexity (one editor called it "[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACreation_Museum&diff=619746799&oldid=619528967 Longest RfC discussion ever]"), I believe a closure would be helpful in determining and recording the consensus. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ It appears the changes largely agreed upon in the RfC have already been made to the article. Protonk (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Legend (disambiguation)
This discussion seemed routine at first, but a couple of late comments make it less than obvious that this should be a routine close. I.E., The first seven respondents all gave support, but the last two articulated only partial support for specific reasons that may need consideration. Discussion was opened a full week ago.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oathkeeper/Archive 1
Requesting a formal close. I believe consensus on this is fairly clear-cut, but given the controversial long-term nature of the overall discussion it's probably best to have an uninvolved editor handle the assessment just to keep everything on the up and up. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Consensus is clear, but what you're asking to impose is a bit strong. Protonk (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2014 August
Would an admin assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2014 August (initiated 16 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts
Would an administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Drafts? This RFC started a few months ago, and the last comment was in June, but the discussion was never closed. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Not too much to draw from the conclusions there, however. Protonk (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Autism and Talk:Autism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Autism (initiated 8 July 2014) and Talk:Autism (initiated 4 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for the 4 August discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Second was by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * First is also ✅. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264 (initiated 26 August 2014) after there has been sufficient participation and sufficient time has passed? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Seems like because this was an AN post, it should have been closed by an admin, but I have closed per WP:IAR for reasons explained there. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 10:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Of Human Feelings
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOf_Human_Feelings&diff=622652888&oldid=621585676 the RfC] Talk:Of Human Feelings (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  19:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Chinese
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Chinese (initiated 27 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this template display simplified Chinese characters first or traditional Chinese characters first?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2013 IRS controversy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2013 IRS controversy (initiated 10 July 2014)? See the subsection Talk:2013 IRS controversy. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No close needed. Consensus to include is clear.  The quote is included.  The real issue is the context around the quote.  That is being discussed so closing this RfC will just be a distraction.  Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:LeBron James
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALeBron_James&diff=621857661&oldid=621624772 the RfC] at Talk:LeBron James (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ I'll leave a comment but this seems like the sort of thing which can be resolved without divining consensus from three posts. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics)
Unopposed (if low-participation) cleanup proposal has run for three months. Way long enough for objections to have been raised. While a non-admin could close this, is probably better if done administratively, due to these being (nominal) guidelines subject to frequent contentious tooth-gnashing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've asked for contributions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Yaris678 (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That resulted in no substantive additions to the discussion on either page, for ten days now. Again, I request that the proposal be closed, so that the cleanup needed to be done there can proceed.  Most of the fractiousness with regard to these guidelines will disappear as soon as their potential for mutual contradiction is fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ WP:SILENCE consensus for support Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Talk:War of the Pacific
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:War of the Pacific (initiated 27 July 2014)? See the related discussion Talk:War of the Pacific where wrote: "This RfC looks a bit contentious, so it should probably be closed by an uninvolved editor before any edit requests are carried out. (Edit requests are only for edits that already have consensus.) If it doesn't look like there will be any more discussion in the RfC, I would list it for closure at WP:ANRFC (although it seems to be a bit backlogged at the moment). Also, Keysanger, Darkness Shines has a point about the walls-o'-text; you'll probably find that you can persuade more people if you keep your posts shorter. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:War of the Pacific. The RfC has run for close to a month now, and consensus seems clear enough to me. Please let me know if you need guidence on this.--Keysanger (Talk) 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ no consensus. Take it to DR/Mediation if this needs to continue. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:West End Avenue
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:West End Avenue (initiated 31 July 2014)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:West End Avenue in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ weak consensus to merge. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada (initiated 21 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should WP:PPAP continue to require the usage of official names rather than common names as the titles for Canadian political parties?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ WP:SILENCE consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine
There is an ongoing merger discussion at Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. It involves merging Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) into that article. The "invasion" article has been filled with controversy since it started, and hence I think it is appropriate to request an uninvolved neutral party to close the discussion and assess consensus when the time comes (in a few days). If you're interested, it would be much appreciated. For reference, I'll also provide a link to this deletion discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 04:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine
This RM has dragged on long enough, has no consensus whatsoever, and needs to be closed. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not agree. The request for closure is based on agenda pushing to downplay the the direct role of Russia in this war. And portray this war as much as possible as a internal Ukrainian civil war. While neutral organisations as Amnesty International label the war as an International war between Russia and Ukraine providing direct evidence for this. We should let time go by, so new/more evidence can clarify the extend of Russian participation and role in this war and preceding unrest. Also Russia admitted it's military involvment in the takeover of Crimea after denying it for more than a month. This will probably also happen after a while with it's participation in the eastern Russian-border region of Ukraine. --Niele (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (my remark here under was removed here on 13 September 2014, 23:30 by a user on basis of his/her opinion that "it is not relevant")--Niele (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sunrise  (talk)  02:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ralph Drollinger
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ralph Drollinger (initiated 2 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "This article has been subject to disputed editing over how much space to devote to Capitol Ministries – see this revision vs the current. We need to gain consensus on how much detail to include, so all comments invited. I won't structure this yet as I have no idea..am only trying to admin this." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 18:01, 15 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Talk:Whitehouse Institute of Design
Long discussion, open for over 30 days, now, requiring closure by an admin or uninvloved, experienced editor. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk 02:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 17:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie (initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - There was a rough consensus not to include the material. Since the material was deleted, no change to the article is needed.  A compromise was mentioned, but was not adequately discussed.  If there is a desire to include the compromise material, a new RFC should be listed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Cite doi
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Cite doi (initiated 9 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gigs (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This thread has been open since 6 September, and there have been no comments in nearly three days. Could a non-involved and neutral admin assess this thread to see if consensus has been reached, with a view to closing? Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: now closed by Graeme Bartlett. – Fayenatic  L ondon 06:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters
AfD has run the full length of time. Can someone close this? Kingsindian (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Observation Was closed y'day. Samsara (FA • FP) 11:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Legends (TV series)
For some reason, this is a contentious close. When the results were 8-3, I felt there was clear consensus, but got reverted. I posted at Administrators' noticeboard to see if I had to list here, but the lack of interest there suggests that I do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There was also a new discussion that had just gotten underway when you decided to circumvent the process and attempt to force a decision via vote, despite being reminded that consensus is not a vote. --Drmargi (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I never shut down that process. The vote had open discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have closed the discussion now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:FFD discussions
Could an uninvolved administrator close a few discussions that I participated in:
 * Files for deletion/2014 September 9
 * Files for deletion/2014 September 9
 * Files for deletion/2014 September 6

Thanks in advance. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:September 11 attacks
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus and close the conversation at Talk:September 11 attacks? Thanks. Smitty121981 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ oppose/no consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox (initiated 27 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not enough input to close properly. I notified WP:USA for additional participants. ☺ · Salvidrim!  ·  ✉  02:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, closed no consensus. Some additional participants, but the discussion itself made arriving at a consensus to be impractical. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/April O'Neil (pornographic actress)
Would someone uninvolved please close this discussion? It has been open for over two weeks (and the relist occurred over one week ago).  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 07:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, all of the open pornography-related AfDs are pretty backlogged. Uninvolved editor(s) should take time to assess each one of them.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 07:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Neurolinguistic approach to second- (or foreign-) language acquisition
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Phil Moore (Australian filmmaker, composer, author)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Already closed by j⚛e decker. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Andrea Harrison
Requested move on September 6, no new votes in over a month. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * closed, this was an easy one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 17. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The categories have already been de-populated (even before the RfC started, it appears), and redirects to the new category already implemented, which is consistent with the consensus there, albeit participation was low. A formal close does not seem necessary here. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 18:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I withdraw this closure request. Thank you for reviewing this discussion, I JethroBT. Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed by as no consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:OpenOffice.org
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:OpenOffice.org (initiated 10 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: Shall we merge this OpenOffice.org and the Apache OpenOffice articles or is there sufficient evidence to indicate that they are separate projects?

A side issue is, is there sufficient size for each article to exist on its own?

Another side issue would be what to do with the current disambiguation page: OpenOffice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  11:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Renewable energy sources
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Renewable energy sources (initiated 2 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Regardless of whether they truly fit the definition, it is clear that neither keeping nor removing them will damage Wikipedia's credibility, and consensus is to keep them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bosnian War
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bosnian War (initiated 2 August 2014)? The consensus appears to be against the opening poster. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  11:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Split, Croatia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Split, Croatia (initiated 13 August 2014)? The RfC's opening poster wrote: "Should Italian translation of the name be written in the lead since there is a separate section Name." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  11:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Girl Next Door (2004 film)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Girl Next Door (2004 film) (initiated 5 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox television
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 115
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 115 (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy) (initiated 3 September 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Five pillars
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Five pillars (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vibhabakshi
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vibhabakshi (initiated 14 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Callanecc. Number   5  7  12:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neme81/sandbox (2nd nomination)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neme81/sandbox (2nd nomination) (initiated 11 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Callanecc. Number   5  7  12:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Edward1967/turas (2nd nomination)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Edward1967/turas (2nd nomination) (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Callanecc. Number   5  7  12:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tommynewsnetwork/sandbox
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tommynewsnetwork/sandbox (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by xaosflux. Number   5  7  12:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dezidor/Simon Mol
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dezidor/Simon Mol (initiated 5 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  12:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cleduc/Pligg
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cleduc/Pligg (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by xaosflux. Number   5  7  12:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 7
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 7? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by jc37. Number   5  7  12:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by jc37. Number   5  7  12:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Polo
Any uninvolved user can close this. Consensus seems pretty clear to me, but I am the OP. If someone can just indicate the consensus, I can do the cleanup. Kingsindian (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Slovakia relations
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✔️ by Randykitty. There's no need to list AfDs here as soon as they're a week old. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Joni Ernst
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst (initiated 16 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 18:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web) (initiated 28 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 18:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiGoals
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiGoals (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 18:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Royal New Zealand Ballet
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Royal New Zealand Ballet (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 18:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 13:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have closed this as No consensus. Fayenatic  L ondon 12:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (initiated 18 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 18:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Steven Emerson
There is a merge proposal here. While this was posted by GenQuest it was opened at the request of Atsme on Proposed_mergers. I would like to note that the request by Atsme was made on 30 June. On July 28 Atsme has opened a merge and delete discussion that resulted in not to merge as seen. Further There is currently an open AFD to delete the proposed article. Two conversations that come down to notability of the same article. I request this merge proposal be closed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Will an administrator please assess the consensus at this proposal for a topic ban on the creation of new articles by User:Aditya soni in article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Now archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:07, 5 September 2014‎ (UTC)
 * ✅ ?? It got archived without action, and imo there is not consensus for a topic ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , what do you think? Armbrust The Homunculus 14:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there was no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it okay with you, if it remains unclosed? That's what I meant. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Formal closure in this case isn't needed.  Go ahead and close this request for closure while leaving the thread archived.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 22:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pectinidae
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pectinidae (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:WZTV
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:WZTV (initiated 7 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . A formal close would only be stating the obvious. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And why is that a bad thing? Armbrust The Homunculus 14:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad thing, per se, it's just pointless. Not every discussion needs a formal close, and many weren't before this board existed. It's just that the existence of this board encourages people to list anything and everything. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've duly stated the obvious. We could have a discussion about whether we need to close the discussion, or we could, you know, just close the discussion.— S Marshall  T/C 19:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Middayexpress
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Requests for comment/Middayexpress (initiated 22 August 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) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kiger Mustang
Would an uninvolved administrator review Talk:Kiger Mustang for speedy close? Montanabw (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✔️. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid
RfC has run the full 30 days and has been delisted. Needs closing by an uninvolved editor, preferably experienced. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 17:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 21:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Constant folding
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Constant folding (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should there be a mention of string literal concatenation (SLC) on the constant folding (CF) article or not? Concretely, proposed edit (diff): ..."Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sunrise  (talk)  00:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources (initiated 4 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. This was another one that perhaps did not need to be listed for formal closure.  It was nearly unanimous. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Turkish presidential election, 2014
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkish presidential election, 2014 (initiated 21 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Used to and didn't use to
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Used to and didn't use to (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nerdypunkkid/Dan Nainan
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nerdypunkkid/Dan Nainan (initiated 31 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:2829VC/Peter Chapple
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:2829VC/Peter Chapple (initiated 22 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265 (initiated 13 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie (initiated 20 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Another unanimous RfC that probably didn't need to be listed here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nudity
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nudity (initiated 12 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References (initiated 2 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:With the Beatles
This is probably not required at all, and I could probably close this myself, but I thought I'd play it safe and ask for someone here to come look and see if the discussion needs to continue (perhaps with broader advertising in relevant venues although I already did so, I believe, at WT:ALBUMS and WT:BEATLES). This has been going on for over six months, last edit over a month ago, and it appears there is a clear concensus at this time.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I just looked at it. If I were to close it now, it would be to state that no consensus had been reached (which means the articles should remain unchanged).  You have roughly equal groups of people making strong arguments.  One thing that you might do is point out that the unit of consistency on Wikipedia is the article, not the article type or Wikiproject, to allay people's concerns that merging these two articles would require them to merge others as well.  You got one editor to change positions with reassurances about the cover art.
 * More good places to promote this RfC would be the talk pages of other Beatles albums. (I didn't see any note of this RfC in the WT:ALBUMS or WT:BEATLES archives.) You can also contact wikieditors who've participated in previous album merge discussions so long as you are careful to contact both those who supported and those who opposed such merges. If you've already tried all that, then yes close it yourself with a finding of no consensus.  No one can object to you affirming that your own proposal didn't go through. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason, my two posts and  were not archived. I can assure you, though, I did make them.  Lazy  Bastard  Guy  00:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't really doubt it. I notice that you say more about how long the dispute's been going on than what the dispute is.  The post is supposed to be neutral regarding which side of the discussion readers should support but you're allowed to get persuasive when it comes to biasing them toward participating at all.  saying that it's longstanding makes it sound drudgy with lots of boring posts to read (and it's actually quite short). "Should the article With the Beatles be merged with Beatlemania! With the Beatles?  Proponents say that the albums are almost identical; opponents say that their cultural impacts merit separate articles (and have concerns about precedent).  New voices welcome." If possible, name any specific policy that's been brought up.  Also, you can promote the RfC at the talk pages of those policies (so long as you do so for policies on both sides of the issue).
 * There's also the WP:feedback request service. You select your category, choose volunteers at random, and tell them you need additional eyes to evaluate roughly balanced sides and suggest new perspectives.
 * But if you don't want to wait any longer, yes you've done your due diligence promoting this RfC and you can close it and move on if you see fit. Not every RfC produces a clear consensus even when promoted properly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I'll keep it open a little while longer and take some of your suggestions regarding how to get new voices involved. I might close it myself if no one else does, although I'd rather someone uninvolved take the initiative. But thank you for your time.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  18:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014
It would be much appreciated if some uninvolved users could help close the RfC. Thanks, Mike V  •  Talk  19:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  21:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oathkeeper/Archive 1
This content dispute has been going on since April and the outcome will probably affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. The RfC covers two issues: 1) Does the web site Westeros.org fit the expert source criteria given at WP:SPS and 2) is the disputed sentence non-trivial enough to include in the article regardless of how it is sourced? If you address both issues in your summary, there will (hopefully) not be anything left for the participants to fight over. Seven Eight editors have logged their responses to this RfC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the material is trivial. It is only appearing explicitly in a fansite. While the fansite is (barely) usable as a source, there is no credible belief that the article would improve from an inclusion of the fansite information. An external link is all that is needed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please remove your comment (and permission to remove this comment of mine in the same edit is given). This is not the place to argue or discuss your position, and it might bias closers one way or the other.  Your views are clearly outlined in your bullet point on the Oathkeeper talk page.  But I will correct one factual problem: No this material does not appear only on Westeros.org.  Corroborating sources and the triviality issue have both been addressed by the participants in this RfC. Darkfrog24 and Jack Sebastian are both long-term participants in this dispute. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Closed. Cunard (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oathkeeper/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oathkeeper/Archive 1 (initiated 12 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. This RfC timed out with all participants in agreement about what it meant.  Please use any energy on the the RfC for which closure was requested. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you might wish to recount. There was significant dissent as to the viability of the content. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack, this is the Ana Carol RfC. All participants, including the person who originally proposed using the blog source (myself), are in agreement not to use it.  No one's contesting that that was the conclusion of the RfC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see. Sorry, you've been forum-shopping at so many noticeboards that I frankly lost track. Yes, there was complete agreement not to use it at all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well not complete but a clear majority and a conclusion by which all participants are willing to abide. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Right; we weren't going to use it. So, let's go ahead and close that out. Sorry for presuming it was yet another misadventure on your part. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed. Cunard (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mesrop Mashtots
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mesrop Mashtots (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: Should the lede contain the following phrase: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * it appears this proposal has already been implemented. There are only three participants in this RfC with insufficient discussion to arrive at a concrete consensus. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line 17:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the discussion, I JethroBT. I withdraw this closure request. Cunard (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shelley Moore Capito
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Shelley Moore Capito (initiated 7 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Shelley Moore Capito's maiden name was 'Shelley Wellons Moore'. Is 'Wellons' still a middle name for her (and therefore should be included in the full name provided in the intro to her bio)?" Please consider the earlier discussion Talk:Shelley Moore Capito in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Closed by User:S Marshall. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Joni Ernst
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst (initiated 28 August 2014)? The last comment was made 9 September 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 16:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Artpop
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Artpop (initiated 26 June 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Artpop (initiated 10 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Involved editor here. I don't believe formal closure is necessary.  This RfC was almost unanimous and the text has been stable on this issue for weeks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Consensus is against the non-standard capitalization. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (initiated 30 August 2014)? An editor wrote: "This thread was archived by a bot. I have unarchived it. Someone should close it and judge consensus." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Consensus was against including the Hamas numbers as unreliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party (United States)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republican Party (United States) (initiated 11 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote in the subsection Talk:Republican Party (United States) (initiated 17 August 2014): "Should the article include the names of prominent Republicans subsequent to 1976 who have been openly critical of the GOP because they believe the Party leadership's views are too far to the right? If so, how should they be described?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Rough consensus was not to include a list of names. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools
Can someone close this? Nobody has replied for some days, and the consensus is unclear. This is perhaps because I did not phrase the question precisely. Kingsindian (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can someone close this? The RfC has run the full 30 days and has been delisted. Kingsindian (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Euryalus (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Stale pornography-related AfDs
Would someone uninvolved please close the following:
 * Articles for deletion/April O'Neil (pornographic actress)
 * Articles for deletion/Phoenix Marie
 * Articles for deletion/Alina Li

They have all been open for weeks; each longer than a week after each relist (and the first one was opened on September 2).  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 06:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. And that's enough porn for one day. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Automobile
This RM has run its course, and should be closed as appropriate by an administrator. RGloucester — ☎ 16:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  21:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide
Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide (first initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Jayron  32  12:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
This RM is twenty-six days old, and needs to be closed. Please do close it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This discussion (in particular, the proposal for a site ban) has run its course and should be closed. <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#444444;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#227722;">| confabulate _ 20:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not close until (at least) Sockpuppet investigations/Tutelary is concluded. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The SPI is finished now, and this can be closed by an uninvolved administrator any time now. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, by User:Euryalus. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI "Interaction ban between Carolmooredc and Sitush proposed"
This has just about run its course and I am requesting a formal statement of intent from Sitush at the ANI (at this point he tells people to look at his talk page). So at some point I'd like a formal close. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 14:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mahendr Dosieah
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 17:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination)
It's been open 2 weeks, ample time for an XFD. The discussion has largely played out. If an uninvolved admin could close this behemoth down, that'd be great. -- Jayron  32  12:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. --John (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Zim Integrated Shipping Services
Would appreciate an administrator closing this RfC, which has expired. I also would appreciate a review of the rather large amount of tagged unsourced material in this article.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  19:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes (initiated 22 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should The Simpsons Movie be included in this list of episodes?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Protonk (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 14
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 14? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have closed this as no consensus, with a suggestion for possible further action. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 20
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 20? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite my involvement, I closed this, as the revised proposal of 22 July took into account the objections initially raised, and it did not require an uninvolved editor to close it. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264
Would an admin review Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264 (initiated 25 August 2014)? Based on the user's contributions, the user has spent a lot of time at IPhone 6. Although there is no consensus for a topic ban, would an admin let the user know about the concerns the community expressed in the discussion and give a final warning that further disruption will result in a block? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically ✅. They haven't edited since the 22nd of september and iPhone 6 is now an article, not a redirect. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive208
There's been a discussion which I think needs closed at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, preferably by an admin experienced in judging consensus regarding a matter of BLP sourcing. If I could request that the closer looks beyond head-counting and carefully weigh strength of argument, you'll forgive me, as this has been a problem in the past. Thank you, --John (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reposted this at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cunard (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  21:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS
This RM discussions needs to be closed. No new comments have been made in the past few days. Please close it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 21:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kevin Sorbo
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kevin Sorbo (initiated 28 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * . Euryalus (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ed Miliband
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ed Miliband (initiated 30 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: The lead describes Edward Miliband as the first 'Jewish leader' of the Labour party. Miliband is ethnically Jewish, but not Jewish in the religious sense of the word; the infobox describes him as an atheist. Should this section of the lead be clarified to say Miliband is an ethnic Jew, rather than a religious Jew, so as not to suggest incorrectly that Miliband follows Judaism? Option 1: Keep as it is. Option 2: Specify that Miliband is ethnically Jewish, not religiously Jewish. Option 3: Remove from the lead altogether. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario (initiated 21 August 2014)? See Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario (initiated 29 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Proposal: We agree on a minimum size: any category by city and sport where we have that many entries, we allow the creation of the category. I think 100 sounds good." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  22:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Unichef/Michael Bersell
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Unichef/Michael Bersell (initiated 27 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by xaosflux. Number   5  7  22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mercedesstonewall/Mason Brown
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mercedesstonewall/Mason Brown (initiated 22 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:San Diego–Tijuana
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:San Diego–Tijuana (initiated 17 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by xaosflux. Number   5  7  22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Smooth jazz
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Smooth jazz (initiated 15 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by xaosflux. Number   5  7  22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kazi Nazrul Islam
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kazi Nazrul Islam (initiated 15 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by xaosflux. Number   5  7  22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 27
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 27? Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have done this too. Only one now remains from July, see section below on July 30. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 31
Would an admin assess the consensus at: Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 31
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 31
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 31
 * I have closed all three. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User names
Would an admin assess the consensus at Requests for comment/User names (initiated 12 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  22:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (initiated 27 September 2014)? Please see the subsection Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (initiated 3 October 2014). If there is consensus for a topic ban, please add the topic ban to Editing restrictions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed on 6 October by TParis. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (initiated 2 October 2014)? There is a clear consensus for "endorse block". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. This has gone on far too long. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:American Broadcasting Company

 * I started a discussion on moving the article a few days back, although I had no issue with the current title. However, since people who do support a move insist I add "TV" to the parenthesis even though ABC was also a radio network, I want to withdraw the nomination and keep the current title as-is. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by oknazevad. Number   5  7  22:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_28
Could an uninvoled administrator look at this discussion? Its passed the 7 days. The lone detractor added an 30-day RFC tag to it when things started going against him (a tactic he has used in previous discussions). I believe that bot the RFC tag and the claim that the discussion should be void are both tactics to try to keep a template on a technicality rather than to have the appropriate discussions necessary. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed. Protonk (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Needs close before the archive bot kicks in. Begoon &thinsp; talk 12:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ This was closed by . Thank you. Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is RFC 3
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Archive.is RFC 3 (initiated 26 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. In your close, please consider the previous discussions related to archive.is: Here are discussions with the Archive.is RFC closer: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia talk:Link rot (initiated 17 September 2012)
 * 2) Village pump (proposals)/Archive 104 (initiated 24 July 2013)
 * 3) Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 8 (initiated 18 August 2013)
 * 4) Bots/Requests for approval/RotlinkBot (initiated 18 August 2013)
 * 5) Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812 (initiated 17 September 2013)
 * 6) Archive.is RFC (initiated 20 September 2013)
 * 7) Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813 (initiated 2 October 2013)
 * 8) Village pump (technical)/Archive 119 (initiated 2 October 2013)
 * 9) Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255 (initiated 31 October 2013)
 * 10) MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2014/03 (initiated 23 November 2013)
 * 11) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013 (initiated 3 December 2013)
 * 12) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and permanent link (initiated 27 February 2014)
 * 13) Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261 (initiated 8 May 2014)
 * 14) Bots/Requests for approval/Archivedotisbot (initiated 10 May 2014)
 * 15) Archive.is RFC 2 (initiated 2 June 2014)
 * 16) Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263 (initiated 25 June 2014)
 * 17) Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845 (initiated 30 June 2014)
 * 18) Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846 (initiated 1 July 2014)
 * 19) Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth (2 July 2014)
 * 1) User talk:Hobit and permanent link (initiated 31 October 2013)
 * 2) User talk:Hobit and permanent link (initiated 11 November 2013)
 * 3) User talk:Hobit and permanent link (initiated 12 February 2014)
 * 4) User talk:Hobit and permanent link (initiated 19 May 2014)
 * There is discussion going on, but I think those can be moved to somewhere else.Forbidden User (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it might be best to wait a little bit more for results from Chris's email. I know I'm waiting to update my views based on it as well as the email correspondense link. I imagine I am not the only one. PaleAqua (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been almost a week with no real discussion and no updates. Withdrawing my wait request. PaleAqua (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Will someone please close this? There is discussion going on, but it isn't going anywhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; wow. Talk about backlogged. :P -- slakr \ talk / 11:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Will am administrator please assess the consensus on this request by User:HighKing to ease the topic ban? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Now archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Fields Medal/Archive1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fields Medal/Archive1 (initiated 15 August 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Fields Medal (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ - The format of the table has basically been agreed and is being tweaked in the usual wiki way. There was no massive disagreement.  This thread doesn't need to be closed.  Yaris678 (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I withdraw this closure request. Thank you for reviewing the request, Yaris678. Cunard (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2014–15 Glossop North End A.F.C. season
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2014–15 Glossop North End A.F.C. season (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

✅, by. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Michelle Thomas/Archives/2014
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Michelle Thomas/Archives/2014 (initiated 17 September 2014)? There is a dispute about the consensus at Talk:Michelle Thomas/Archives/2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

by User:S Marshall. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:OpenOffice.org
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:OpenOffice.org (initiated 31 August 2014)? Please consider the RfC close at Talk:OpenOffice.org in your close if it is relevant. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * +1 for someone to close this. The RfC template was automatically removed last week. Most of the RfC contributions were made in the discussion section for some reason. --Tóraí (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ by S Marshall --Tóraí (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (initiated 30 August 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed by S Marshall. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Second Boer War
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Second Boer War (initiated 19 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the nations from which foreign volunteers came be listed in the infobox?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

✅ Drmies (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 30
Would an admin assess the consensus at: Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 30
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 30
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 30
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 30
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 30
 * I have closed all but one, where I supported deletion after it was contested. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The last discussion was closed by . Cunard (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nazi Party
The discussion doesn't have be closed soon. However, in case that the discussion has become stale, I need an extremely neutral person. Moreover, I would strongly recommend the same person who is experienced on determining consensus, but experience is optional. --George Ho (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed by S Marshall. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq
After one week discussion, we have - in response to the proposal - "that 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq be renamed and moved to 2014 Iranian intervention in Iraq" 2 people who "oppose", 1 person who "weak opposes" and 1 person who "supports." Can a neutral and uninvolved editor please consider closing this RfC? DocumentError (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This is now an WP:RM (altered as part of the agreement on the ANI you raised). The RM started on 9 October it will finish when the RM is closed by an independent editor/administrator after about seven days (around the 16 October). -- PBS (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PBS. I didn't realize the clock restarted once the form was amended. DocumentError (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Closed by Dekimasu. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014_Iranian-led intervention in Iraq
After one week discussion, we have - in response to the question - "Should Hezbollah be included as a belligerent, including flag icon in the infobox?" 4 people who "support", 1 person who "weak supports" and 2 persons who "oppose." Can a neutral and uninvolved editor please consider closing this RfC? DocumentError (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. De728631 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems that you started this RfC here. Please read WP:Rfc and follow this instruction for each RfC you have initiated (sign and date or date):
 * 3.Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template.  Sign the statement with   (name and date) or
 * Please do this for all the RfCs you have started on that page. -- PBS (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies, PBS, I thought it was self-evident I started the RfC by the fact I was the first !vote, but I'll be glad to add my sig to the proposal line, as well. DocumentError (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It my be self evident to humans but it is not self evident to the bot. The bot creates a list of RfCs by topic eg:
 * Requests for comment/History and geography
 * RfCs introduction statements are meant to be neutral. Having you sign "Support" statement in the RfC list is not neutral. -- PBS (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't put "Support" in the RfC's introduction. I put it in the section called "Opinion in Brief," where it is appropriate to express opinions. My RfC introduction is neutrally worded (Should the section "Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq" be included in this article?) Thanks. DocumentError (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything down to the first signature appears in the list including the section heading "Options in Brief" and your support sentence. As I said it is not self-evident to the bot what you meant, it takes it literally (As the old graffiti said "My computer does what I tell it to do, not what I want it to do") -- PBS (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. What do I need to do? DocumentError (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not want you do anything, just to explain to you that the Bot takes everything down to the first signature, which means that it hovered up your opinion as well as you lead. It was more an explanation of what to do with future Rfcs. However as the bot did not seem to see your last changes, I've refactored the lead of the two entries on the talk page and in the list. If you do not approve of my refactoring then please revert my changes. -- PBS (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There's actually no reason to close. 5 people have voted in support but 5 people have not made a consensus in support. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view, after all.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/American Society of Military Comptrollers
been listed over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Deleted by kelapstick. De728631 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Latvia relations
Has been relisted for over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Closed as Keep by RoySmith. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
Can a uninvolved editor close this and assess the consensus?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed by S Marshall. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Rebecca Bardoux
An outside uninvolved editor is needed to close this RfC. -- Green  C  17:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed by S Marshall. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ronn Torossian
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronn Torossian (initiated 4 August 2014)? Please consider Talk:Ronn Torossian in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 14 and Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 14 (initiated 2 September 2014) and Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown (initiated 8 September 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for both discussions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ with both. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:ISO 8601
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ISO 8601 (initiated 9 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? If so, does this edit by JMJimmy help readers understand that ISO 8601 uses the Gregorian calender, or hinder that understanding? If the Gregorian calendar is used, is the wording as of 7 August 2014 (UT), JMJimmy's wording, or some other wording best?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by another admin -- slakr \ talk / 08:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) (initiated 13 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: The current version of the article uses very coarse language in the section dealing with social reactions to the match. The text at present is the following:
 * Current Text: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several videos with titles such as 'Young Brazilians get fucked by entire German Soccer Team' were uploaded."

I propose that this section should be written in a more professional tone, and consider the following an improvement:
 * Proposal: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several of these videos were transferred to their network with sexually suggestive titles."

Please let us know which of these two options are better and why. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2014 September
Would an admin assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2014 September (initiated 9 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This move review discussion opened on September 9 and hasn't had any new comment since September 17. Thanks.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 09:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics (initiated 23 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: When discussing fictional characters in a real world context, is it acceptable to refer to them with gendered prounouns, such as he and she, or should they be referred to as objects?

Example:
 * He is a superhero who was created by Simon and Kirby.
 * The character is a superhero that was created by Simon and Kirby. One editor recommended WP:SNOW close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 11:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:OpenOffice.org
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:OpenOffice.org (initiated 28 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * +1 for someone closing this. It involves a lengthy discussion between three editors in particular and two other contributions. It's been open for nearly three weeks and no further comments appear to be incoming. --Tóraí (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Pinging this thread. The related RfC above was closed by S Marshall. --Tóraí (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Closed by Dekimasu. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:WikiProject Biography
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:WikiProject Biography (initiated 20 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the Biography template be adjusted to include the 'bdp=' parameter?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC) This doesn't actually look like a RfC in need of closure so much as a discussion that people lost interest in. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Closure request withdrawn. Thank you for reviewing the discussion, Philosopher. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/30 SW
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Requests for comment/30 SW (initiated 26 August 2014)? The last comment was made 31 August 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) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Suspended by User:Beeblebrox due to inactivity of editor in question. Closer noted that RFC/U can be reopened if editor returns to editing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Dan56
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Requests for comment/Dan56 (initiated 28 July 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) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

by User:Beeblebrox. Jehochman Talk 12:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage for User:Oshwah
Would an admin please review and approve or decline this request for. Previously commented by admin, but still open since 26 August 2014. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 12:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:South Yemen
The RfC template has been removed because the RfC was over 30 days old, but the discussion has not come any nearer to a consensus. There are currently eight different ways the type of government might be described, each of which is opposed by a significant number of editors, and very few of which have even a bare majority in favour. Nevertheless, some neutral closer needs to come down in favour of one of these, otherwise it will be impossible to move forward. Scolaire (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Only Communist state had a majority, which is rough consensus. If another editor prefers a different choice, a new RFC with only 2 options would be appropriate.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change (initiated 26 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Closed by User:S Marshall as no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:European Conservatives and Reformists
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:European Conservatives and Reformists (initiated 4 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "There is currently disagreement about how the lead and infobox should described the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR)." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 07:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Miroslav Klose
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Miroslav Klose (initiated 28 August 2014)? The discussion concerns this edit to the article. The content removed in that edit is currently in the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Left in the statement that he is Catholic. Took out reference to meeting with Pope.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:GNU (disambiguation)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:GNU (disambiguation) (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Closed each of the items proposed for addition and deletion. For details, see talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy (initiated 26 August 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 07:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Administrators%27 noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators%27 noticeboard (initiated 28 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ (yonder) by -- slakr  \ talk / 07:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Caste system in India
Obvious agreement to merge. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 08:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/British Council for Chinese Martial Arts
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by another admin -- slakr \ talk / 08:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Worldedixor
This RFC/U was started on 11 September and hasn't had any new comments since 23 September. has squandered his chance to resolve his issues informally with personal attacks. In the talk page a consensus was formed to have topic ban for Syrian Civil War/ISIL issues broadly construed. I'm concerned that he may come back (perhaps as a sock) and without a TBAN there won't be anything that can be done about it.~Technophant (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. As discussed on the Talk page, if you want to request a topic ban, go to WP:AN. And don't speculate about another editor coming back as a sock. It's a personal attack and you should retract it. I've closed the RfC/U due to inactivity. As an aside, I've never closed one before, so if I didn't follow the procedures properly, someone be kind enough to let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , thank you for closing the RfC. For future reference, the instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. Here are two examples RfC/U closures: Requests for comment/Middayexpress and Requests for comment/Epeefleche. Would you add a closing statement to the RfC? The close could mention that (i) you are closing due to inactivity, (ii) your summary of the consensus regarding the editor's problematic behavior (if any), (iii) the support for a topic ban at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Worldedixor (I am basing this off Technophant's above post; I have not read the discussion), and (iv) that community topic bans cannot be enacted at RfC/U and requests should go to WP:AN or WP:ANI per Banning policy. Cunard (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comments. I (slavishly) followed the instructions. Unlike other closes, the close for inactivity does not say to make any comments, just to archive it. I did put a comment in the archive table that it was closed for inactivity. All the other issues have nothing to do with the reason why I closed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the instructions say just to archive it, but I think an uninvolved admin's summary of the consensus would be helpful if future discussions (like a possible community topic ban mentioned by Technophant in the opening post) refer back to this RfC/U. Instead of having to read the entire discussion, editors could refer to your summary. Requests for comment/Middayexpress and Requests for comment/Epeefleche were also inactive when they were closed. Would you consider adding a closing summary to the RfC/U? If you don't want to, then no worries, I withdraw this request. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cunard, I'm going to leave it alone, although I appreciate your comments about what happens sometimes in practice, even if it's not per the instructions. Putting aside the procedural issue, I don't believe there was such a consensus. It was just talked about on the Talk page mainly. I didn't see any consensus in the RfC/U. It was mainly this odd back-and-forth between the certifiers and Worldedixor.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought there might have been a consensus based on Technophant's opening post. ("In the talk page a consensus was formed to have topic ban for Syrian Civil War/ISIL issues broadly construed.") The dispute between the certifiers and Worldedixor appears very acrimonious. I hope Technophant won't make this assertion in the future based on your evaluation of the consensus (or lack of it). Cunard (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please ask this vindictive person who drove me away from editing Wikipedia one question: "Local" consensus by who? The (very) small number of people who actually drove me away from editing this article? I have not edited Wikipedia for over a month, and ALL my previous edits to the "article" were supported by reliable sources without violating policy not once. I also fixed problems that no one else knew how to fix. Anyway, let him enjoy his life behind a computer screen.  I will not be sucked into this matter once again... Now, they're doing the same to Gregkaye, a good editor. I am no longer interested in editing Wikipedia at all!... Worldedixor (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Content following was moved to User talk:Technophant. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  04:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Creation Museum
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Creation Museum (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, Cunard. Please file this one under "much ado about nothing". Drmies (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies (initiated 28 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "This dispute has to do with the appointment of Catholic bishops, but I am seeking a wider consensus, because in over three years none has been reached, and there has been no central place to discuss it exhaustively." If there is no consensus in the discussion, perhaps the closer can offer the RfC's participants advice about how to better frame and publicize the discussion to encourage participation by more uninvolved editors. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ in terms of closing the motion. Samsara 15:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Anjem Choudary/Archive6
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anjem Choudary/Archive6 (initiated 26 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, this was easy. You could have closed this months ago. , I congratulate you on your tenacity. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bhagavad Gita
Obvious disagreement. 31 days gone, no one has commented. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Restored closure request removed here. The close requester believes in good faith that a close would be helpful. I agree. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Consensus opposes the merge. No consensus yet on moving spin-off article to WikiQuote. Samsara 06:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her
Would a fair minded, uninvolved party please assess the consensus of this survey? Further relevant discussion that preceded and provides context for the RFC can be found here. VictorD7 (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Samsara 06:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq
After one week discussion, we have - in response to the question - "Should the section "Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq" be included in this article?" 5 people who "support", 1 person who "opposes" and 1 person (since retired from WP) who "mildly opposes." Can a neutral and uninvolved editor please consider closing this RfC? DocumentError (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Samsara 13:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Animal name move requests
It would be great if someone could sort through one or more of the following move requests related to animal names, some of which have been open since August: Talk:Teeswater sheep, Talk:Anglo-Nubian, Talk:Flemish Giant, Talk:Harz Red mountain cattle, Talk:Canadian Speckle Park, Talk:Corsican Cattle, Talk:Asturian Mountain, Talk:Dutch Landrace, Talk:American Sable, Talk:Blue Grey, Talk:Danish Protest pig, Talk:Bronze turkey, and Talk:Buff turkey. Help would be much appreciated. Dekimasu よ! 17:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Dekimasu よ! 21:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:James Randi Educational Foundation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James Randi Educational Foundation (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Samsara 07:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gina Rinehart/Archives/2014
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gina Rinehart/Archives/2014 (initiated 12 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Time to settle this once and for all, so we can stop this edit war. I have locked the article so you can't even add how much more money she has today, before you settle this. (Ms. Rineheart, if you don't mind, I could do with some money.) Simple: chairman or chairwoman or chairperson?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Result: Chairman. Samsara 21:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Prem Rawat
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prem Rawat (initiated 20 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Is it OK to replace the first sentence of the Prem Rawat article by 'Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, inspirational speaker and Ambassador for Peace.' — and if so, do we need additional references for that sentence, either re-using one or more of the 138 references already in the article, or new ones suggested above on this talk page and/or in Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Bot has removed RfC template --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅: While suggested "the results are self-evident", I closed it.
 * I leave the request on this talk page, lest someone wants to review my closure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, saw only now that someone else had already requested closure, so merging the two sections on this page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alex Jones (radio host) (initiated 24 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Does New York Magazine described Jones as “America’s leading conspiracy theorist”,[14] and the Southern Poverty Law Center describes him as 'the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America.'[15] About being labeled a 'conspiracy theorist', Jones has stated that he finds himself 'proud to be listed as a thought criminal against Big Brother.'[14] belong in the lead of this BLP as opposed to its prior position in the body of the BLP?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Samsara 10:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ashok Chakra Award
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ashok Chakra Award (initiated 24 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Samsara 09:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of extinct mammals
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of extinct mammals (initiated 15 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the inclusion criteria for this list be amended to include only extinctions occurring on or after the year 1500 CE?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Tóraí (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Paulin
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tom Paulin (initiated 8 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Is the 'Controversy' section in this BLP as of 17:00 8 Sep 2014 of proper, insufficient, or excessive weight to the entire BLP?  Does the section as constituted comply with WP:NPOV?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ✅ - Controversy heading was deleted, but much of the controversy material is still there. This appears to be consistent with rough consensus. No change at this time needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Crossover thrash
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Crossover thrash (initiated 22 September 2014)? Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ✅ - What little consensus we have is against the deletions. No change needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity/Archive 1 (initiated 6 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done A no consensus result. Samsara 06:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Eagles (band)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eagles (band) (initiated 5 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: *Should the infobox genre list all the genres also listed in the article, for which anyone could find a reference OR

✅ - Unanimous to list only rock Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Should the infobox genre parameter be reduced to the most general genre, in this case rock Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shades of Deep Purple
Would an experienced editor administrator assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple (initiated 24 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to be a content dispute, but a stale report of edit warring. Needs an administrative close.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion is on-going as part of a wider RfC at Template_talk:Track_listing. --Tóraí (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 115
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 115 (initiated 22 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Tóraí (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks (initiated 19 September 2014)? Please consider the RfC close at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 12 in your close. This discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ✅ - Rough consensus against refactoring the policy. Left as is. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2014 October
Would an admin assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2014 October (initiated 16 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Tóraí (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Electoral Commission
Would an uninvolved individual help close this RfC? If you do not feel that the consensus is clear, it is requested that you defer the closure to a bureaucrat. Thank you, Mike V  •  Talk  00:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gave it my best shot. If you have any further comments, let me know. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Samsara 05:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine
Can someone please close this - it's been open for well over a month, and is turning increasingly acrimonious. The closer might also want to consider the conduct of one particular editor with regards to WP:TWINKLEABUSE on the article itself. Cheers, Number   5  7  08:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Ricky81682. Number   5  7  10:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2015 Formula One season
Could an uninvolved an experienced administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:2015 Formula One season? Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Samsara 09:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time.Tvx1 (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:George Clooney#RfC:Is the Controversy section warranted.
Request for uninvolved editor to close this. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Number   5  7  23:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Request for 2nd opinion. I'm not sure that an uninvolved editor could have read through the thousands of words in the talk commentary and tallied the results in just 12 seconds, and make an informed closure. --Light show (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Minutes, not seconds. :-) Either way, ✅. <font color="FF6600"><font face="Times New Roman">Sunrise  <font size="1.8">(talk)  18:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)