Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 18

Talk:Paul_Singer_(businessman)
This RFC was opened in March. At this point it's run for well over 30 days. Editors are unlikely to come to an agreement on what the consensus is. Could use a close.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Damat Ibrahim Pasha
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Damat Ibrahim Pasha ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – already closed by Guy on May 26 as no consensus. --IJBall (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Meghan Trainor
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Meghan Trainor ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - already closed by User:Spartaz on May 26th in favour of Singer-songwriter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory) ? The opening poster wrote: "Should be article be redirected, or kept and improved?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – already closed by Guy on May 26 as "no evident consensus". Follow-up RM also failed on May 21 with "no consensus". --IJBall (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – already closed by Guy on May 26 with a decision of only "a brief list of notable instances" may be included. --IJBall (talk)

Template talk:Infobox person
I would like to have an experienced admin close the RfC at Template talk:Infobox person. The consensus for BLPs is pretty clear, but additional guidance on whether I need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, etc., that contain "religion = None" in the infoboxes would be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 47 days since RfC was posted, still waiting for someone to evaluate the comments, write up a summary giving us additional guidance on whether we need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. and close the RfC. This would be a big help in resolving issues such as these: --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Guy (Help!) 17:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:MyWikiBiz
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MyWikiBiz ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth Warren
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elizabeth Warren ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. --GRuban (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:History of economic thought
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:History of economic thought ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌. Not formatted as an RfC, generic content discussion, no need to close it. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:World War I infobox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:World War I infobox ? The opening poster wrote: "Should the Emirate of Jabal Shammar be included in the infobox as a co-belligerent of the Central Powers?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – already closed by Guy on June 10. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Foie gras/Archive 6
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Foie gras/Archive 6 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Magneto (power generation)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Magneto (power generation) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * by Just zis Guy. --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Esquivalience t 14:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. --GRuban (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Just going on and on and on, with no end in sight. Too many changes proposed at once, so no way for consensus to be reached other than to conclude no consensus has been reached. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * By Just zis Guy. Yes, he gets around. Something about an accident with a contraceptive and a time machine, I think. --GRuban (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know
This discussion has been going on for a while, stalled, was bot-archived, restored minus the template. Probably is ready for closure. Eman 235 / talk 18:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * – already closed by Guy on June 10 as consensus for change in the format of DYKs. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Federalist (website)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Federalist (website) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – already closed by Guy on June 10 as "source is OK" to use but "proposed text does not have consensus". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Theodore_Roosevelt
Proposal has been open since February and it's not going anywhere (there was even a failed AFD in there too). Someone should put the merge proposal out of its misery. Calidum T&#124;C 20:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  21:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:VP/P
Please close this RfC. It has run for the allotted period, and the result is clear. RGloucester — ☎ 16:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Closed as successful; enacted in Special:Diff/666418299. Esquivalience t 01:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Jane Brown
This has been open for two weeks with more than enough participation, so could do with someone taking a few minutes to assess the consensus and close it. Thanks.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This close needs an administrator to enforce the move-protection, so only administrators should administer the close. Esquivalience t 00:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 04:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 03:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Campus rape
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus rape ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅— S Marshall T/C 21:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:G. Edward Griffin
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:G. Edward Griffin ? Please consider Talk:G. Edward Griffin in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film
This discussion, begun April 27, has reached a point of repeated arguments by the same few editors. It is over 26,000 words long after fewer than 10 days. If it's left without closure for much longer, it will be the size of a small novel and daunt any attempts at closing it. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's two weeks since the initial request, and the time-consuming morass is worse than ever. Respectfully requesting closure, with the acknowledgment that it might be a challenging task. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm the originator of the RfC. I agree, and came here to request formal closure by an uninvolved admin. The issue is contentious and consensus remains unclear; It may also have wiki-wide implications. The RfC discussion is quite lengthy, so a summary of the RfC (i.e. a concise outline of the main points presented by both sides of the issue) is here. Lapadite (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This RfC's introduction is essentially flawed: It does not propose two (or more) options to choose from, neither does it make a proposal which may me supported or opposed. This led some !voters to support or oppose a large variety of things without being clear how these thing stand in connection with what other !voters support or oppose. Other !voters said yes or no, while the introduction actually presents different positions (for or against) concerning the inclusion of different things, to wit: non-notable, non-sourceable, and/or no-wiki-article-having awards. That makes it even more difficult to know what these !voters actually said yes or no to. For that reason, the usual closers active in this area have so far refrained from tackling this thread. Kraxler (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've looked through this and attempted to find a conclusion, but unfortunately that is no consensus to do anything due to lack of clarity. Unless someone else finds a better one, it looks like this is the likely close to be implemented. Mdann52 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , as it states in the "Summary of RfC" section linked above, the RfC asked: "[per WP policies and guidelines] do items in list articles - such as awards in "List of awards and nominations received by (film or person)" articles - need to have their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles? The RfC was focused on awards in List of awards and nominations articles." It was also clarified in the RfC intro that it was not a proposal but a question to be answered/clarified per current policies & guidelines. Editors responded to various elements of the issue. That summary section, and perhaps the section below it, encapsulates the entire lengthy discussion. As you may gather from the older discussion(s) linked in the RfC intro and in the Summary, this is a long-standing issue, particularly with the wikiproject, and there never has been a proper community consensus to refer to, one way or another. Some editors have insisted on guidelines changes (e.g., objective & restrictive criteria for all list articles) to support an objection to policies & guidelines that allow awards/organizations without WP articles to be reliably sourced in lists articles; but formal proposals of course are outside the scope of the RfC (and a wikiproject). I'm not sure what more can be clarified here. I can only point to the summary section for the outline of points presented in the entire discussion. Lapadite (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 05:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Masjid al-Haram
The move request was withdrawn about half a month ago (on 8 May 2015), and there have been no more comments since that day. Khestwol (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ 30 May 2015 (not by me). --BDD (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Final Fantasy VII (Famicom)
The backlog is horrendous, but this should be an easy close. --BDD (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 22:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 22:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Consensus is clear to topic-ban this editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * – by on June 8 (see: IncidentArchive887 for details). --IJBall 05:30, June 11, 2015‎ (UTC)
 * – by on June 8 (see: IncidentArchive887 for details). --IJBall 05:30, June 11, 2015‎ (UTC)

Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_3
Please disposition Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_3, which has been open for over two weeks without relisting. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Steel1943 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 22:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Categorising buildings by street
The longest-outstanding CFD discussion at 2015 Jan 17 boils down to a disagreement on whether we should categorise buildings by their street address. Many experienced editors oppose this; it has only been done so far in certain parts of Australia, where local editors wish to keep this pattern, suggesting that it should be copied worldwide. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * . And note that there are experienced editors on both sides of the disagreement. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I meant to note that many experienced contributors at CFD oppose categorisation by street. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 04:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Messy RfDs about Ottoman princesses
There are two expired RfDs on Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 4 which seem to have arisen from a botched move / fork sequence. I'm not sure I know what the best course of action is - can we have a fresh pair of admin eyes to close this and perform the appropriate remedial actions? Deryck C. 22:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * at relisted page Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_28. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Tensor
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tensor ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅— S Marshall T/C 23:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Braess's paradox
One opposing editor, has not answered requests for facts supporting his/her claims, appears to have said all they are going to say. 85.178.209.39 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Moved by EdJohnston on June 15. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Moved by EdJohnston on June 15. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

RfD related to Mattress Performance
Per a discussion on my talk page, this RfD discussion could use an early close because of a BLP violation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If an uninvolved admin could please look at this sooner rather than later, it would be helpful. This seems to be a case of SNOW delete as a BLP violation.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 04:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI proposal to dissolve IBAN between me and Catflap08
This proposal received no opposition, was supported by one of the subjects and three other users; the other subject was neutral. But the thread got archived no result by a trigger-happy archive bot. It's not really a close request so much as a request to read the discussion and remove the WP:EDR entry accordingly. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC) No consensus to dissolve interaction ban at this time. There's no need to resurrect the thread out of the archive to close it. If this topic flares up again, editors can refer to it there. Hopefully the editors will mind the IBAN and there won't be any need.
 * . Steel1943  (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This thread has been unarchived; it can be found at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Steel1943  (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Marking this as ✅. Hi DrNick ! 15:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
No comments for a couple of days bar my bump, consensus is pretty clear. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 00:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE: This one has already dropped off the main ANI page (it's gone to Archive886, here); I'm rather shocked that no action was taken on it, as the consensus was clear. So if an Admin wants to move on it, they're going to have to pull it back from the archives to the main ANI page first. But I get the impression that this one is going to be left to slide, unless and until if flares up again I guess... --IJBall (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – I'm shutting this one down, as any Admin action at this point is exceedingly unlikely as it's basically moot after all of this time. But this one will continue to exist in the archives for referencing if this issue should flare up again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

====RFC: Should all discussions and proposals about Nikola Tesla's nationality, ethnicity and country of birth (broadly construed) be limited to the sub-page: Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity?==== The last comment was a few days ago. This should be easy to close, so any uninvolved editor can close it. Thank you. - MrX 12:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The RFC header is still there, it hasnt went 30 days, it needs more time before closing. AlbinoFerret  14:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * RfCs don't have to run for a full 30 days. I actually posted this thinking there was a backlog and it wouldn't be looked at for several days. By then it would be appropriate to close.- MrX 21:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem to list, and there is still a backlog so it may take awhile to get to. By then it should be closer to the 30 day mark most are closed at. AlbinoFerret  21:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

- Was NACed a few days ago. Thanks.- MrX 15:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Closed as no consensus. A better worded RFC might be useful.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of cities proper by population
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of cities proper by population ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure there's anything clear to close. -- slakr \ talk / 04:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅While I concur with User:Slakr that there is nothing clear to close, I have closed it as no consensus (not even consensus as to what the consensus should be about). Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy/Standards
Last comment was made on May 23rd; there do not appear to be any new arguments forthcoming. Thanks! —Swpbtalk 17:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

— Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - No consensus, due perhaps to inadequate publicity. Recommend another better publicized RFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 23
There are two open discussions that were open almost a month ago, and nobody has commented on them in over 3 weeks, and to me, the conesus seems pretty clear on both of them. JDDJS (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done -- slakr \ talk / 23:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 21
There are twelve discussions of Feb 21 still open while it's nearly two months later. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Down to ten discussions as of now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't think so, I still count 12. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but it's now down to 9. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now down to two. Some of the usual CfD closers can't close these as they have participated in the discussions. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right; it's down to one, but I voted in that one. All I can say is that the OP actually proposed one thing (to listify a certain category) and the !voters then !voted for something else (to delete, or to restructure, or to confirm that a certain category is not for people). I propose to close this procedurally as "no discernable result" and open a new thread discussing the real issue. Kraxler (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "No consensus" would be the usual wording. If no uninvolved editor closes it within another week of your comment here, I say go ahead. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I voted in that discussion, so I shouldn't close it. The problem with "no consensus" is that it defaults to the status quo, and no action will be taken. Action is however necessary because the present state of things is a mess, which needs to be cleaned up. Your own !vote, Fayenatic, is the most sensible way how to do it. That's the reason why I propose to either amend this RfC, or start a new one, giving that option for choice. The !voters actually, as far as I can see, rejected Binksternet's proposal to listify the category. Kraxler (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done -- slakr \ talk / 05:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I opened a new discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 10. Kraxler (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2015 June 7
DRV headed off the rails due to a number of end-runs around process (including perhaps by me); currently generating more heat than light. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * done by Salvidrim!. Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Port Stephens, New South Wales
This RM was a flawed open. An editor who had made multiple, undiscussed moves and who has been discussed at WP:AWNB for these moves, moved Port Stephens to Port Stephens, New South Wales and turned Port Stephens into a disambiguation page. I requested it be moved back at WP:RM as an uncontroversial technical request, but this was opposed by an unrelated editor so I gave up and moved the page to the correct disambiguation. I then retargeted Port Stephens, New South Wales to a more appropriate article. Without asking, another editor then opened the RM 5 hours later. The RM has the appearance that opened it, but I did not. This has caused confusion as it looks like I'm asking for a redirect to be moved over a disambiguation page, which was not the purpose of the original request. Attempts to explain this have proven pointless and, as the discussion serves no purpose it should be closed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the problem. The dab page has four credible entries. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * done by DrKiernan. Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Aviation lists
The bot came along and removed the RFC tag, so if someone could close it. --Izno (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * done by Armbrust. Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Scott Walker (politician)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Scott Walker (politician) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done— S Marshall T/C 15:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:M. T. Carney
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:M. T. Carney ? The opening poster wrote: "Does this article read too much like a résumé, and should it be tagged as such until it is brought up to standard?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Done AlbinoFerret  21:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hugo Barra
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hugo Barra ? The opening poster wrote: "Does this article read too much like a résumé, and should it be tagged as such until it is brought up to standard?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Done AlbinoFerret  21:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Edward Snowden
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Edward Snowden ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done— S Marshall T/C 15:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Tuzla
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Tuzla ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done— It has been done. LavaBaron (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Sarajevo
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Sarajevo ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done— So say we all. LavaBaron (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kumanovo shootings
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kumanovo shootings ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Done AlbinoFerret  21:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of most-produced aircraft
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of most-produced aircraft ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Done AlbinoFerret  21:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Richie Farmer
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Richie Farmer ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done— S Marshall T/C 15:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dog meat
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dog meat ? See the subsection Talk:Dog meat. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Picture B it is. Esquivalience t 01:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 120
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 120 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, with no policy or guideline to be created or modified. Esquivalience t 02:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Templates for discussion backlog
WP:TFD now has a backlog stretching back more than one month (April 25, 26, 28; May 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16). Could an uninvolved admin please help close some of the discussions? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 12:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2015 May
Would an admin assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2015 May ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Jenks24 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2015 May
Would an admin assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2015 May ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Jenks24 (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: Is this an "actual" RfC? Does it even need a "formal close"? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Realistically, this should probably just be handled with an request and whoever responds will spot-check for consensus. -- slakr  \ talk / 03:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an actual RfC. Would an admin assess the consensus in the RfC to determine if the proposed change should be made? Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Mdann52 (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Billy Crystal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Billy Crystal ? The opening poster wrote: "Should Crystal be described as an 'actor, singer, writer, producer, director, comedian, and television host' or 'entertainer'?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

✅ Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 03:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Poland
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Poland ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Blue touchpaper lit, an explosion on my talk page is now expected...— S Marshall  T/C 10:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Australians
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Australians ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅— S Marshall T/C 18:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * – by Guy on 23 June with a firm "No". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:TransAsia Airways Flight 235
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:TransAsia Airways Flight 235 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Mdann52 (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sturmabteilung
Discussion was closed by its own nominator, which I think is against WP:CLOSE procedures. The discussion did need to be closed, but the nominator was heavily involved in the vote. The closure is not in dispute, only that it needs to be re-closed by an uninvolved party with a stated consensus or lack-there-of rationale. -O.R.Comms 13:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh, it would have been better if the nom had left it to an uninvolved party, but there was clearly never going to be a consensus to move the article so I think to open it up and then immediately re-close would be policy wonkery of a pretty high order. Feel free to a tack on an additional note at the RM referencing my comment here and that I believe there was a consensus not to move the article. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking this ❌. Jenks24 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Proper noun
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Proper noun ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've drawn some additional attention to this discussion recently, or tried to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Major edits at the merge-from article mooted the merge proposal, so I rescinded it (i.e., it's already non-administratively closed).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You closed one part of the discussion, what about the rest? And what about the merge tags on the articles? Is there still something to merge, or should they be removed? Kraxler (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ Nothing really left to do, and the tags have been removed. Mdann52 (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fine. An article rewrite is in order at this point to resolve the POVfork.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Nisour Square massacre and Talk:Nisour Square massacre
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nisour Square massacre and Talk:Nisour Square massacre ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

✅ Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 03:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:History of Slovakia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of Slovakia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 03:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:History of Slovakia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of Slovakia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 03:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 124
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 124 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 10:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 123
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 123 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 10:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kenji Miyazawa
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Freddie Gray
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of Freddie Gray ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And now moved to the Talk page archive: Talk:Death of Freddie Gray/Archive 2 --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Freddie Gray
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of Freddie Gray ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Freddie Gray
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of Freddie Gray ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also moved to the Talk page archive: Talk:Death of Freddie Gray/Archive 2 --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Peter May (disambiguation)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peter May (disambiguation) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 10:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Rick Schwartz
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rick Schwartz ? The opening poster wrote: "Does this article read too much like a résumé, and should it be tagged as such until it is brought up to standard?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ although it was glaringly obvious and really didn't need admin attention in the slightest. :P -- slakr \ talk / 10:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Xiaomi
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Xiaomi ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

✅ --GRuban (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; this was also clear/obvious and didn't need listing here. -- slakr \ talk / 10:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  22:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian states
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian states ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Mdann52 (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  21:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 61
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 61 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  21:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:No Game No Life
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:No Game No Life ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  22:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Paranormal activity
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paranormal activity ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  22:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Yes (band)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Yes (band) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  21:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of largest cities in the European Union by population within city limits
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of largest cities in the European Union by population within city limits ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ One response to the question, not enough input for a merge, archived it. AlbinoFerret  22:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Bosnian mujahideen/sandbox002
MfD participation is often low, so I request a close per WP:SILENCE. Articles can be deleted without objection after a week; this has been listed for more than three. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 09:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
A consensus has clearly been reached, and substantive debate has been over for some time, turning into people trying to count who is or isn't on their side of the debate. That's obviously the "job" of an uninvolved closer. I think this could probably be closed with minimal review time. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've closed this, but on the basis of policy and the intended function of the guideline, not voting.  DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Williams (Internet entrepreneur)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Matt Williams (Internet entrepreneur) ? The opening poster wrote: "Does this article read too much like a résumé, and should it be tagged as such until it is brought up to standard?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I& others have now cleaned the article sufficiently.  DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

====Village pump (policy)/Archive 119====
 * A direct link, as the link in the title above doesn't seem to work... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's currently at a working state (at least on my end), now. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Requesting closure on a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), that has now been archived. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – The consensus seems pretty clear here. This should be an easy close... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ – I have closed this one as consensus in support. Hopefully I've done this right (and may God have mercy upon my soul if I have not...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems with the closure. Kraxler (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  13:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Frill-necked lizard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frill-necked lizard ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  12:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Identity theft in the United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Identity theft in the United States ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  12:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive 27
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive 27 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  12:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox comedian
It has been 30 days with widespread, unanimous support, and despite this, anon IPs are refusing to recognize the consensus until the RfC is formally closed. It appears to be WP:POINT on their part and sheer cantankerousness. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  16:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox comedian
An RfC has just been closed confirming that the influences/influenced fields have been deprecated. The template page is locked except to admins. Requesting, please, that an admin indicate this on the template page. With thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 18:38, July 4, 2015‎ (UTC)


 * It appears that the documentation page is unprotected. An admin has pointed this out. This section can be archived. AlbinoFerret  21:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * – We're done here: the RfC was closed as "deprecate" parameters, and Tenebrae has edited the template's documentation (which are not protected) to remove mention of using them. This is closed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I closed it, its RFC is a few spaces up. I was just leaving a message so this section is archived as well. :) AlbinoFerret  23:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Derry
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Derry ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: this has now been superseded by Talk:Derry . The second discussion has now run into the ground, so ideally both RfCs would be closed at the same time. Scolaire (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To note that a discussion has yet to take place as apparent involved editors have yet to pass comment on the proposals made.Dubs boy (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ the first one. -- slakr \ talk / 10:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All involved editors have yawned and said no to DubsBoy's proposals. He just isn't inclined to take no for an answer. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My proposals were not a yes or no question. I made 5 proposals. 2 users voted and 2 users abstained. Allow the conversation to gather more input. So far no tangible objection has been lodged.Dubs boy (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think formal close is needed here - I mean, the consensus is blindingly obvious... Mdann52 (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've set this one to "done=yes" now – it has already been moved to the Talk archives there, and it seems like no "formal" close is needed in any case... This entry can probably be archived now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Total WP:SNOWBALL. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to let it run. Its still early days... Spartaz Humbug! 14:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And no activity since 9 June. This is ripe for closure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ (non-admin closure) --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
There are some suggestions further down the !vote sections for which an assessment would be welcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ – someone closed it today. Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 52
This RfC was opened at WT:Article titles on 26 April after long-standing disagreement on the method of disambiguating warship articles (most recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_44, with links to previous discussions added in this edit). Conversation petered out around 3 May, with a few sporadic comments up to 16 May. The RFC template was removed as stale on 27 May, and autobotarchived a week later. I am requesting an uninvolved individual assess the discussion and determine what the outcome is. Could the reviewing individual please post the result at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships? -- saberwyn 21:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  22:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Embraer E-Jet E2 family
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Embraer E-Jet E2 family ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  23:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:A Voice for Men/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:A Voice for Men/Archive 1 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC) ✅ Bishonen &#124; talk 07:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC).

====Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)/Archive 2==== Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)/Archive 2 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  15:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Cite isbn
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Cite isbn ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  23:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Red link
Two RfC's on redlinks in navboxes – there's considerable support to close these now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia talk:Red link, where talk of closing the discussion is taking place. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Too soon for a closure, especially given Flyer's link. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think it should be closed. I'm skeptical anyone involved does not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support close: Pretty clear consensus, the second RfC appears to be supported by the nominator of the first, article is locked down until resolved, and though Flyer does note a heated discussion about closing, it's basically all the same people making all the same arguments, and that's going nowhere. Best to close before people get too emotional about it.  Montanabw (talk)  22:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Pretty clear consensus" is your opinion, an opinion others have disagreed with you on. There is no need to state our personal opinion on the consensus here in this section. And the only place I called the discussion heated is at my talk page, which, yes, I know is watched by a lot of people. Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, with all due respect, your view is outnumbered by almost a 2:1 margin. Your personal opinion is relevant here, and I have no clue about your talk page, I'm just tired of the drama at the redlink page.  You can debate this to death, but it's really time to drop the stick and let someone close this.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  07:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Montanabw, with all due respect, you and others have been told by more than one editor that WP:Consensus is not a headcount; you and some others keep going on about the number of support votes vs. the number of oppose votes; that generally is not how WP:Consensus is supposed to work. I have not been arguing against a close at all; I have argued against incorrect applications of WP:Consensus and made it clear in this section that this section is not the place to be debating this, trying to influence the closer. Yes, WP:Drop the stick indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And I reiterate that the only place I called the discussion heated is at my talk page. So how one can know that I called the discussion heated without looking at my talk page is a wonder, I suppose. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Flyer, my point is that the discussion at the redlinks page was getting too heated and for no good reason. Its time to close this debate and please will someone please go over there and close it?  You have to understand that Consensus is not "two tendentious opponents get to defy a supermajority consensus by holding their breath until they turn blue."  If a 2:1 majority, with reasoned debate isn't a consensus, I don't know what is.    Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  20:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Your point was to come and make a needless comment at this talk page to try to influence the closer; let's not play dumb here. Everyone else's comment in this section was neutral. Yours was not. And if you are referring to me as one of the "two tendentious opponents," you are wrong. I expressed my opinion, notified relevant pages to the discussion and then got into a back and forth mess with a highly WP:Uncivil editor; more than one editor got into a back and forth mess with that highly WP:Uncivil and WP:Disruptive editor, and noted that the editor is highly WP:Uncivil; in fact, "your side" has been the provocative side. And anyone wanting to know which editor I'm talking about can see the "heated" commentary on my talk page. I was done with all of that mess, until an editor commented on my talk page about a compromise and I was later WP:Pinged in the aforementioned closing section. So let's not act like I've been trying to keep this discussion from closing, especially when I WP:Pinged two good closers to end this nonsense. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I merely supported the close with the comment that there was a clear consensus, I didn't say which way. It is you and you alone who are arguing against closure and stirring up the pot by your accusations of incivility and apparent refusal to agree to close the debate until you get your own way (I I am wrong and you favor closing too, then just say so.)  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  00:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the WP:Uncivility on the part of the editor in question is not debatable in the least. Nor is the WP:Harassment that the editor engaged in when it comes to me. If calling a spade a spade is stirring the pot, then so be it. If I really wanted to stir the pot on that matter, I would have taken it to WP:ANI. And there has been no refusal on my part to agree to close the debate until I get my own way, which is exactly why you cannot point to any such examples. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * More stated here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✔️ I found it archived with an RFC box. AlbinoFerret  15:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Tony Abbott
Shall this be closed? The discussion has resorted to just personal attacks about the topic. --George Ho (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposer removed the whole thread, putting the request to moot. --George Ho (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol_declined.svg Closed Actually, I reverted the removal and then re-closed it as "withdrawn". --George Ho (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Community General Sanctions II
I believe this has reached ripeness for closure. There's a good consensus IMHO on the sanction, and agreement the limited set of directly Zeitgeist-related pages to apply it to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Salvidrim! Blackmane (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Procedural close?
See Talk:João Mário (Portuguese footballer). The nominator carried out this move without a close, which of course is procedurally inappropriate, but I'm inclined to say consensus supported it. I'm not neutral in the request, however. Requesting an admin or other qualified closer either effectively endorse this or reverse the move until the RM closes. --BDD (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . --BDD (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Trial of George Zimmerman
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Trial of George Zimmerman ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ariana Grande
Discussion has been open since May 29. Requesting closure. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 22:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ undid close to give a few more days. AlbinoFerret  12:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an utterly underhand request for closure. The debate has been progressing 'today, with plenty left to say. That one of the involved parties is trying to censor further comment by requesting a close is a repellant step., can I strongly advise that you "unclose" this asap. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I didnt have to undo it, I have undone the close to give it a few more days. But to me it looks like its starting to become a rehash with every reply. AlbinoFerret  15:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had enough of your baseless accusations against me. The discussion has been open for longer than a month, which is generally when these can be closed, and the discussion is coming to a dead-end as AlbinoFerret pointed out. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 16:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing baseless here. Your approach to this whole affair has been sub-optimal. - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Right. Would you care to make more accusations of me being a liar for generalizing the proposed text at the Grande RfC? Or being underhanded for requesting closure of an RfC that has gone on over a month when the consensus is quite clear? I'm done here and I suggest you don't clutter ANRFC with any more of your slander. You have been warned numerous times about making disputes personal, and if it continues I will be more than glad to take this to the appropriate venue. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 17:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yawn.... Zzzzzzzz..... - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  00:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy
This move request is more than two weeks old. Would someone please close it, as either consensus or no consensus? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Moot. It's now been closed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2015 April
Would an admin assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2015 April ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by someone else. -- slakr \ talk / 01:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dennis Hastert
There is a single editor with an oppose comment. Request closure per WP:SNOW. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a "SNOW" close – the opinion is rather more divided than you make it out to be, as I see a few for just "abuse", and a few more for "sexual abuse". Further, your one "oppose" makes some good points. I'd advise letting it play out... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Informally closed by Nyttend on June 17, so I'm marking this as "done=yes". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The closure is being disregarded.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have re-opened the RFC, as it was closed on an extremely novel interpretation of WP:PRIMARY. See Wikipedia talk:No original research. I am flabbergasted that an experienced editor and admin will further the notion that we can't use news reports because they fall under WP:PRIMARY. If that was the case tens of thousands of articles will fall out of compliance with our core policies, including ALL articles of politicians, current events, and many BLPs. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * At the article talk page, Cwobeel says: "If the RFC at Wikipedia talk:No original research passes, I will eat my hat and accept this closing. But until that RFC closes, this one has to remain open." This is very weird. Cwobeel seems to be saying that this RFC depends on the outcome of another RFC.  And that if the other RFC is closed the way that the closer of this RFC says he wants, then the close of this RFC will have to be reversed. Perhaps the admins who have been involved can figure it out, but I can't.  I object to Cwobeel's reopening of the RFC in this way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The correct procedure for challenging a close is described here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The closure is being challenged at WP:AN. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And reopened. I'm "involved" now, but I would advise any Admin, etc. to let this one run for the full time... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- slakr \ talk / 01:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Closed as no consensus for the addition SPACKlick (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC) ✅

CSD:G13 change proposals
Since discussion has died down I am petitioning for early closure on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 55 (Currently at 9/9, meaning a no-consensus to implement) and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (Currently at 17/1, meaning significant consensus to implement). Both discussions have died down over the weekend and it appears that consensus has made itself known. I gave notice in the discussions that I intended to petition for early closure based on the early discussions and counter proposal I made. Hasteur (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the "4 day delay" RFC.  Still looking for someone to close the "sidebar proposal" discussion with a consensus evaluation so that we can move forward.  I'm explicitly prohibited from closing it since I made the proposal. Hasteur (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Hasteur. Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59
Archived by bot before formal closure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would Formally close as consensus to merge but the discussion is now 7 months old and archived. RFC's don't need formal closure to take effect and there were no dissenting voices. Go ahead and mergeSPACKlick (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC) ✅

Talk:Tony Abbott
I need someone to decide on the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * U2713.svg Already done by anythingyouwant. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Genetically modified food
RfC just expired. Close will need to be thoughtful and will take some reading as there were extended comments. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Given the complexity and contentiousness of the RfC, I'd suggest that a 3-person panel would be a good idea for this. (I'm involved, so I can't volunteer.) <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 22:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Admins. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC asked editors to review 18 sources to answer the question: do these sources support statement. I can't imagine how this request could have resulted in anything but an extended discussion.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is no such thing as a panel for closing an RfC. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Occasionally a panel of three editors or three admins has closed an RFC. I don't think it is in the guidelines but it has been done.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Closed. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Pedro Nava (politician)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Pedro Nava (politician) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed. Kraxler (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed. Kraxler (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Upstate New York
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Upstate New York ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - No consensus. No question was asked, and no answer is provided. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography ? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Don't use pornographic as disambiguator unless there are two people with same name. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Camel toe
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Camel toe ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed. Kraxler (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Female copulatory vocalizations
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Female copulatory vocalizations ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed. Kraxler (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No original research
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:No original research ? Please consider Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed. Kraxler (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 116
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 116 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - No consensus, so status quo remains at 7 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 116
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 116 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - rough consensus against rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not finding that item, even in archives of the page. Technically, the problem with doing that is deciding which version in the Internet Archive to use. If it's done badly, Wikipedia may get a link to a domain parking page. John Nagle (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's pretty clear support and it should be closed in favour but it's sitting in an archive. What's the general procedure for this so it doesn't go unnoticed by the interested parties? SPACKlick (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Unarchive, then close. Bot will later rearchive it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done SPACKlick (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

====Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald==== Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done SPACKlick (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (publishing)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (publishing) ? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * done Archived withdrawn proposal. Kraxler (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (history)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (history) ? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * done Archived withdrawn proposal. Kraxler (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Race (biology)
Should be speedily closed. The proposed merge is not possible under policy, because the topics are categorically unrelated (a historic taxonomic classification of wildlife, vs. a term for standardized domesticated organisms, respectively), as proven with a bunch of reliable sources, and supported by subject-matter expert editor opposition to the idea on the same grounds. This is a WP:DAB matter (and the topics are already disambiguated, though Race (biology) is itself ambiguous; RM ongoing). The proponent of the merge has stated they think the article should not exist, and has been pointed in the direction of WP:AFD, the proper venue to pursue that idea. Attempting to merge two unrelated articles is not correct procedure to seek deletion. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed early per WP:SNOW. Kraxler (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 01:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Leo Frank
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Leo Frank ? Please consider Talk:Leo Frank in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 23:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Miroslav Filipović
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Miroslav Filipović ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bijeljina massacre
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bijeljina massacre ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This one appears to be resolved - the Capture article was taken to AfD and deleted, and the (small amount of) unique material has already been moved. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 00:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have archived the discussion, as moot. Kraxler (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:E-meter
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:E-meter ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 22:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Consensus to deprecate, but no consensus on alternative. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Handling trivia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Handling trivia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Same-sex marriage in the Pitcairn Islands
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Same-sex marriage in the Pitcairn Islands ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ The user who asked the question, and answered himself in the negative, had closed the discussion on July 11. Kraxler (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Copyfraud
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Copyfraud ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 01:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 21:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 125
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 125 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Consensus to implement slight expansion of suppression criteria. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

WT:MOSNUM
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consesnsus at WT:MOSNUM. Please address three related questions: 1) Is there consensus to add a comment about the symbol(s) for astronomical unit to the manual of style? 2) If yes, is there a consensus which symbol(s), if any, should be specified? 3) If yes, is there a consensus for the explanatory text to be added? —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 21:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks ripe to me. Everyone's said their piece, and it's perennial (for MOS), so it's all been said before. This time, I think there's actually a consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Closed as "consensus to adopt proposal". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)
Would an experienced uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film) about how to refer to an earlier version of the film? . Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC) ✅—SPACKlick (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Military of ISIL
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Military of ISIL ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy1339 (talk • contribs) 01:43, July 23, 2015‎ (UTC)

Talk:Balochistan,_Pakistan
Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus of this discussion? Although some editors continue to post their opinions, I feel we are going in circles. Please read the whole discussion carefully, some editors who !voted on the original RfC have agreed to a compromise. Thanks.--– jfsamper ( talk • contrib • email ) 09:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅SPACKlick (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts
Discussion has been open since March 2014 and was revived in May 2015; no new comments in over a month. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 16:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure a formal close would do much good here - mainly because a new option was proposed right at the end of the discussion and received limited comments, and apart from that consensus is basically crystal clear. Mdann52 (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Closed here. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

====Wikipedia talk:Deletion process § Should relisting discussions automatically exclude users from any !voting in the discussion?====
 * Requesting closure of this recently concluded Request for comment. North America1000 18:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 20:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Edward Snowden
There is an dispute as to whether there is consensus in this discussion, which hasn't seen meaningful progress in 2 weeks. This has caused some ongoing low-level edit warring. There's a BLP element to the dispute as well. Attention by an admin would be appreciated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

✅ by. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2015 June
Would an admin assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2015 June ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ bd2412  T 13:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk: GFH Investment Bank
It is still unclear whether the page move has been approved. The official name for the GFH Investment Bank is GFH Financial Group, and it should not have been rejected. I request to close this discussion page, or an approval, so that i could continue to move the page to GFH Financial Group to its correct name. Sama Alshawi (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - there is a clear consensus against moving, so the page will not be moved. bd2412  T 13:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Derry
. An RM framed as an RfC. This is now at nearly 100kB, most of it tendentious and some of it outright personal attack. There is nothing new being said. It needs to be closed ASAP. Admin close preferred, so there is no risk of it being challenged and reopened. Scolaire (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Still pending outcome of discussion. Scolaire is opposed to change and has attempted to have 3 users blocked in an attempt to end discussion. Foul play.Dubs boy (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅; there is a consensus opposed to any proposed scheme of changes. bd2412  T 14:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol
The title alone probably says it all. Big case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and someone who does not understand what disambiguation is for, but refuses to concede they're not WP:WINNING. I'm tempted to just take this to WP:ANI, but a proper close is probably sufficient. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of note ANI discussion of some of the relevant edits and AN3 discussion relating to some relevant edits. SPACKlick (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . I don't see a section by this specific title, and there appear to be three different page move discussions on the page, so it isn't clear which this is in reference to. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is the section in question. I'm not sure why the archive is a subpage of a different article title, but per this diff it seems likely to have been caused by OneClickArchiver. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 23:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Added nowiki tags to the not done so this closure request is not archived by the bot. Cunard (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ as to both discussions. Cheers! bd2412  T 14:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers ? See the subsections Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ – I closed the relevant portion of this (the "true" RfC part) about a week ago. So this doesn't need to be here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Derry
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Derry ? Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Derry (closed 30 June 2015). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅. I overlooked this and posted another request. It has now been closed by . --Scolaire (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bias in reporting on North Korea by Western news media
There might be a consensus. If not, perhaps I should start the RM. The RFC should be an RM or a predecessor to RM. You decide. George Ho away from home (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 21:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol
This one hasn't run the full 30 days but the relevant editors have all commented and discussion has basically stopped so a formal close is probably appropriate. SPACKlick (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ bd2412  T 14:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  18:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✔️ Closed by on July 22nd.  AlbinoFerret  17:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Newfound River
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Newfound River ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:French colonial empire
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:French colonial empire ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅  DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 21:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jimi Hendrix
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jimi Hendrix ? Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Jimi Hendrix/Archive 8 (closed 31 May 2015). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ by 11 days ago.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  20:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sustainable_energy
Could someone assess the consensus at this RfC about whether information about nuclear breeder reactors should be included in the sustainable energy article? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC) —SPACKlick (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ by 7 days ago.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  20:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:New Mexican English
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Mexican English ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

✅ - No real question asked, but advice to use dispute resolution was good. Closed without consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Charleston church shooting/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Charleston church shooting/Archive 2 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  17:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox country ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * --<b style="color:grey">ceradon</b> ( talk •  edits ) 21:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --<b style="color:grey">ceradon</b> ( talk •  edits ) 00:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ask.com
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ask.com ? The opening poster wrote: "Should the lead paragraph include that IAC / Ask.com is a distributor of malware?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --<b style="color:grey">ceradon</b> ( talk •  edits ) 05:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Indigo children/For Indigos
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Indigo children/For Indigos ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ bd2412  T 13:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations) ? Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Nakon. Cunard (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2015 July
Would an admin assess the consensus at Move review/Log/2015 July ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_25. The page was recently expanded. QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ bd2412  T 13:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC Kosovo Identification
Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at RfC Kosovo Identification? In view of the disruption of this RFC, an administrative close is recommended. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This RfC, which asks if the current identification of Kosovo as a "disputed territory and partially recognized state" should be changed to "sovereign state," has been open for more than 7 days. During this time there have been 5 !votes from editors to change to "sovereign state" and 5 !votes from editors to keep "disputed territory and partially recognized state." (Please note that, of the five !votes for "sovereign state," one is from a SPA that is one month old and the other is from a IP editor.) The conversation has now degenerated into a routine content debate and, since there is not a majority - let alone consensus - to make the change to "sovereign state," a closure by an uninvolved editor and/or admin affirming said lack of consensus would be appreciated. LavaBaron (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the discussion is largely taking place between one editor (IP accounts) and me. I suppose we can continue the disagreements/exchanges even in the event of a closed RfC. Should we actually reach an agreement then it will probably be accepted by all others, if not, then no harm done. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * RfCs usually run for 30 days. 7 days is too little a time to close them, unless there is overwhelming consensus. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 03:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * LavaBaron's comment does not represent the truth, it is not true that the votes are 5 vs 5 (in my counting neither were on June, 26). The current votes are 6 votes on Sovereign state, 4 votes on Disputed Territory and Partial Recognition, and 3 votes on all options together Sovereign state, Disputed Territory and Partial Recognition. Whilst the majority of editors so far (9/13) indicated that they would like sovereignty being placed in the lede sentence, the current lede does not contain it. In addition, I would like to point out that the actual lede is not a result of any previous consensus, but as a result of unilateral updates by the editors of the "so-far" minor side of the RfC. To conclude, I would be glad if any involved admin thoroughly reads the outcome of the RfC unbiased by the comments here (including mine). Regards 95.90.184.96 (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This IP is obvious sockpuppet, and should not comment here. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  00:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To the involved admin: i) i am not a sock-puppet, ii) unfortunately such personal insults are not new with the latest editor (e.g. Talk:Kosovo), and iii) he is engaged in an edit war against the will of most editors in terms of introducing the sovereignty term (history at Kosovo). P.s.: Sad to have to respond to this level of underbelly aggression, instead of contributing to the topic. 95.90.184.138 (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FTR. 13 contributors. Six chose "sovereignty" only on first line, seven chose "partially recognised" and "disputed territory" on the first line. Of those seven, there is an additional 4/3 split over whether "sovereign" should appear before "state" (because something has to be said after "partially recognised"), but nothing to warrant the absence of partially recognised and disputed territory. So clearly the consensus is to have all three listings. Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FTR. In terms of combinations (the RfC question asked concrete combinations) the most voted option is sovereignty alone with 6 votes, then next is 4 votes for partially recognized and disputed territory jointly. If one would decompose the explicit combinations and count the implicit singular elements in them, then sovereignty is the most voted element with 9 votes, then partial recognition with 7 votes and disputed territory with 7 votes. Unfortunately, the current article's lede sentence not only does not start with the (most voted) sovereignty term, but sovereign does not even exist in the article at all. Therefore, the RfC so far is a major breakaway from the current article formulation, which I believe needs to be rewritten. Sure, my intention is to not ignore the opinion of the minority of editors and I think that partial recognition and territorial disputes should be naturally mentioned. E.g. it can be "Kosovo is a sovereign state (9 votes) with partial international recognition (7 votes), whose territory is disputed (7 votes) by Serbia". Nevertheless, such formulations look too heavy to me and I prefer different sentences per element: first sentence-sovereignty, second sentence-partial recognition, third sentence-territorial dispute. 95.90.184.138 (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You should go back to your account (if its not blocked or banned). Its not ok to spam this many pages here on wiki per SHOPPING. Go back to Kosovo talk page, and go back to your account, so we can solve this chaos you made. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  11:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Watch your words and allow the others to have a civilized discussion, who do you think you are to order editors what to do? 95.90.184.138 (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Or an easier way is "Kosovo is a disputed territory and partially-recognised sovereign state". Everything said, fewest keystrokes. And of course, "sovereign" here is added which should should no doubt please the real minority (for whom only six wanted 'sovereignty' to feature on its own) because Kosovo would be the only breakaway state in the world to feature this word in its opening sentence. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Respecting the RfC votes so far, the "disputed territory" (a minor voted element) should not be located before "sovereign state" (the most voted element). Secondly, partial/full recognition is not a mandatory criteria of a sovereign state (recognition by one UN state is sufficient for sovereignty), therefore the recognition status it is not a categorizing adjective for the word sovereignty. For this sake, I find it less logical to say "partially-recognized sovereign state", than saying "sovereign state with partial international recognition". Consequently, partial recognition is a characteristics of the Republic of Kosovo, it is not a characteristics of its sovereignty status, therefore positioning the recognition trait afterwords eliminates the ambiguity. 95.90.184.138 (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Seven disagree with that formula and with those principles. Let's not discuss the logistics in this space, we can do that without restriction at Talk:Kosovo. I intend to use this space merely to offer our final positions so that it can be left to admins from that point, my next post here should do that once I have established what everybody wants. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagreement over !vote

OppositeGradient and I are at odds over how to handle the outcome of the votes. This section is for admins to discern which of the two proposals below is most appropriate and upon that choice, may he please make the necessary changes if required (or leave a note if none is required). Note that this is not an extension of the debate that has taken place these past weeks, and that no new evidence or material is being submitted here. The conversation on the matter between OppositeGradient and me may yet continue indefinitely on Talk:Kosovo.


 * Brief outline. We discussed how Kosovo should be treated on the first line, the options presented by the RfC nominator were 1) Sovereign state, 2) Partially recognised state, 3) Disputed territory. We were given the choice of mixing and matching, and combining so there was no "interrogation factor" (i.e. "you will choose 1, 2, or 3 only"). Fourteen editors participated, six believed in Option 1, seven combined options 2 and 3, and one more in option 3 alone; of the seven to select 2+3, three went for the full list of items (i.e. disputed territory and partially recognised sovereign state).

I have struck out text above with this very post for two reasons. 1) The conversation is ongoing and new editors have spoken, 2) I mistakenly assumed !vote to mean just that, only later did I discover WP:NOTAVOTE. These details have overtaken the tone of the above post. Regards --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * View of Oranges Juicy. I treated each item on account of how many persons chose the term. The term "sovereign" was opposed by 4/14. Nine out of the remaining ten were split between six choosing it to stand on its own, totally unqualified, whilst three agreed that it should strictly be mentioned in relation to being partially recognised and a disputed territory. The tenth stood by "partially recognised state" per se. The terms "disputed territory" (noun phrase) and "partially recognised" (adjective phrase to qualify "sovereign state" or "state") were both selected by 7/14. On this premise, I believe disputed territory and partially recognised sovereign state (or vice versa) best reflects neutrality per the comments of the participants.


 * View of OppositeGradient. This editor observes that with regards the single figure system of the votes, a plurality has chosen "sovereign state" to stand alone on the first line. He admits that "partially recognised" and "disputed territory" were agreed by half (7/14) - with 8/14 in favour of "partially recognised state" - but notes that the internal disagreement amongst the seven (three agreeing on use of adjective "sovereign", and four disagreeing) is sufficient to omit "partially recognised" and "disputed territory" from the first line (despite these terms being agreed by the seven). As such, his belief on the strength of the plurality choosing Option 1 is that "sovereign state" is all that should appear in the first line, and that other items should start from the following sentence. - check after this post.

As discussion continues, I believe there will be no agreement between us on how the vote should be interpreted and thereby request that an administrator intervene to help resolve the matter. Many thanks.

Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My view and final stance is actually slightly different to the summary of OrangesJuicy. In my view, we can have either a multiple sentence introduction, or a single liner. I propose to respect the outcome of the RfC as follows:
 * 1): If we agree on multiple sentences: Sentence 1 - sovereignty (9 votes), sentence 2 - partial recognition (7 votes), and sentence 3 - territorial dispute (7 votes)
 * 2): If we get stuck with a single sentence: "Kosovo is a sovereign state (9 votes) with partial international recognition (7 votes), whose territory is disputed (7 votes) by Serbia".OppositeGradient (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo

Could an admin or uninvolved editor assess the consensus, or lack thereof, at Talk:Kosovo, which asks if the descriptor "sovereign state" be added to the article for Kosovo in lieu of, or in addition to, the descriptors "partially recognized state" and "disputed territory"? By my count, after 30 days of discussion, we have 7 !votes not to and 5 !votes to make the change (several from IP editors) which leads me to believe there is no consensus for the change. LavaBaron (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * To the involved admin, the editor has again miscounted the votes and misinterpreted the outcome of the RfC. To start with, the RfC present at Talk:Kosovo gathered a relatively large audience of opinions (17 editors). They were asked to provide their opinions on the formulation of the lede sentence, choosing from SS - sovereign state, PR - partial recognition and DT - Disputed Territory.


 * The editors and their selected options are as follows: SS (RedSlash), SS (Khestwol), SS (OppositeGradient), SS (NewquarterMaster), SS (Gjirokastra15), SS (bobrayner), DT + PR (LavaBaron), DT + PR (Zoupan), DT + PR (Anastan), DT + PR (Јованвб), SS + PR + DT (OrangesJuicy), SS + PR + DT (IJA), SS + PR + DT (EdinBalgarin), PR (Marcocapelle), PR+DT (Irina Harpy), SS + PR + DT (BMK), SS (Roladi+). This counting has removed all the IP contributions choosing SS, for the sake of avoiding polemics. It is worth informing that a few editors not choosing SS did not provide any supportive arguments, however I counted all the involved RfC editors for being as neutral as possible. The outcome of the RfC is:
 * 1) Option SS : 7 editors
 * 2) Option PR+DT: 5 editors
 * 3) Option SS+PR+DT: 4 editors
 * 4) Option PR: 1 editor
 * 5) Options including SS: 11 editors
 * 6) Options including PR: 10 editors
 * 7) Options including DT: 9 editors


 * The current lede of the article has only PR+DT, but not SS. As you can see, the opinions are in favor of incorporating all three aspects. Even though my option SS was the most voted, I am personally proposing to include the other two less voted options PR and DT, in order to reach consensus. My neutral proposal is "Kosovo is a sovereign state (11 votes) with partial international recognition (10 votes), whose territory is disputed (9 votes)". The "(X votes)" fragments are obviously to be removed and are inserted only for illustrating the support rank of options. Opposite Gradient Talk 07:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, no ... that's not quite how this works. The current definition is "partially recognized state and disputed territory." To add "sovereign state" requires a consensus. If the consensus is not achieved the status quo is maintained. The accurate count of !votes was as follows:
 * Change to "Sovereign State" (RedSlash, Edin Balgarin, Khwestol, Anonymous IP Editor 95.90.184.69, Newquartermaster, Gjirokastra15, OppositeGradient) - 7 !votes (including 1 IP editor and 2 new accounts created within days of the RfC becoming active)
 * Change to "Partially Recognized Sovereign State and Disputed Territory" (IJA) - 1 !vote
 * Change to "Disputed Territory" (Marcocapelle) - 1 !vote
 * Keep "Partially Recognized State and Disputed Territory" (Zoupan, OrangesJuicy, Anastan, Јованвб, Iryna Harpy, LavaBaron) - 7 !votes
 * First, there is not even a majority, let alone a consensus, to add "sovereign state." Second, there is an interesting pattern of new accounts suddenly becoming active after this RfC went up and advocating for "Sovereign State" with an impressively deep knowledge of WP:PG. My neutral proposal is to close the RfC as "no consensus to add sovereign state." LavaBaron (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am impressed to see you are miscounting and misinterpreting the RfC again, despite I provided you the FULL list of editors in my previous post! Once more, the editors and their selected options are as follows: SS (RedSlash), SS (Khestwol), SS (OppositeGradient), SS (NewquarterMaster), SS (Gjirokastra15), SS (bobrayner), DT + PR (LavaBaron), DT + PR (Zoupan), DT + PR (Anastan), DT + PR (Јованвб), SS + PR + DT (OrangesJuicy), SS + PR + DT (IJA), SS + PR + DT (EdinBalgarin), PR (Marcocapelle), PR+DT (Irina Harpy), SS + PR + DT (BMK), SS (Rolandi+). The aggregated statistics of the RfC are:
 * 1) Option SS : 7 editors, list: RedSlash, Khestwol, OppositeGradient, NewquarterMaster, Gjirokastra15, bobrayner, Rolandi+
 * 2) Option PR+DT: 5 editors, list: LavaBaron, Zoupan, Anastan, Irina Harpy, Јованвб
 * 3) Option SS+PR+DT: 4 editors, list EdinBalgarin, IJA, Oranges Juicy, BMK
 * 4) Option PR: 1 editor
 * 5) Options including SS: 11 editors
 * 6) Options including PR: 10 editors
 * 7) Options including DT: 9 editors


 * First of all, you wrongly phrased the question of the RfC . The question was "Which combination of SS and/or PR and/or DT do you want for the lede sentence of the article?" Secondly, you miscounted editors (totally "forgot" DMK, Rolandi+ and bobrayner), in addition to altering editor votes (Marcocapelle (PR, not DT), Oranges Juicy (SS+PR+DT, not PR+DT), EdinBalgarin (SS+PR+DT, not SS) ). As anyone can verify, out of 17 editors, 11 of them indicated Sovereign State (SS) to be present at the lede sentence, which is 65% of the participating editors. As a result you made a false claim that there is no majority for including SS, because 65% of participating editors is a clear majority. As a result of the RfC conclusions, my neutral proposal is "Kosovo is a sovereign state (11 votes) with partial international recognition (10 votes), whose territory is disputed (9 votes)". Opposite Gradient Talk 11:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, OppositeGradient. Like many of the "Sovereign State" advocates in this routine edit dispute, it appears you're quite new on WP and have only had an account for 20 days during which time you've exclusively been working on this subject, so I'd just gently remind you we typically don't accuse other editors of "misrepresentation" right out of the gate; since you arrived on WP with what appears to be a fairly advanced knowledge of WP:PG I would hope you were aware of that. Secondly, a RfC presented with the assumption a change to an established article will be made and we are simply tallying votes to determine what the change will be is not a valid RfC. I did not "misrepresent"; this is the underlying issue with your "counting." Forty-five percent of editors oppose any change at all to the status quo, while the remaining 55% embrace three wildly different opinions as the discussion demonstrates (and include a number of IP editors and apparently newly minted SPAs). This is the very definition of "no consensus." My neutral proposal is to close the RfC as "no consensus to add sovereign state." LavaBaron (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi LavaBaron, I am proud for, not guilty of knowing WP:PG. Coming to the topic, at your first above post you explicitly mentioned that only 5/12=41% of editors were in favor of sovereignty, claiming that many of them are IPs. After I provided you the full list of editors without any IP included, you still responded in a second post claiming that no majority exists in favor of sovereignty. After a further explicit demonstration and counting of RfC participants, you finally changed your version and in a third post mentioned that 55% of editors are in favor of adding sovereignty. In your third post, you accepted yourself that your earlier two posts misinterpreted the results. However, please let me kindly inform you that even your third post is a misinterpretation of the RfC. Because the true RfC outcome, as I listed twice before, shows that 11/17=65% of editors (all registered, no IPs included as clearly indicated) are in favor of adding sovereignty. It took three posts for you to "change" your own calculations of sovereignty from 41% to 55%, please let us not spend three more exchanges for you to realize that the correct fraction is 65%. I am assuming good faith that your repeatedly made errors in counting, because as I twice demonstrated most editors (65%) were in favor of adding sovereignty. Opposite Gradient Talk 15:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's correct, there is no majority that exists to effect a change to "sovereign state," let alone a consensus. The distribution of !votes is as follows:
 * Change to "Sovereign State" (RedSlash, Edin Balgarin, Khwestol, Anonymous IP Editor 95.90.184.69, Newquartermaster, Gjirokastra15, OppositeGradient) - 7 !votes (including 1 IP editor and 2 new accounts created within days of the RfC becoming active)
 * Change to "Partially Recognized Sovereign State and Disputed Territory" (IJA) - 1 !vote
 * Change to "Disputed Territory" (Marcocapelle) - 1 !vote
 * Keep "Partially Recognized State and Disputed Territory" (Zoupan, OrangesJuicy, Anastan, Јованвб, Iryna Harpy, LavaBaron) - 7 !votes
 * As we can see, unfortunately, no consensus exists to make the change proposed in the RfC since only 55% support any change at all (many of whom are IPs and newly minted SPAs) and those 55% are divided into three wildly opposed visions of what the change should be. I'm not sure further discussion will be that fruitful so I'm bowing out here until someone is able to close this as per the finding of No Consensus. Thanks, OppositeGradient! LavaBaron (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ After further discussion, since sock was blocked and comments struck out, I felt ok in closing this. Comments about closure are welcome through proper channels (user talk page or closure review). Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)
Will an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist (film_series)? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In view of the contentiousness of this article and of recent disruptive editing, an administrative close may be preferred. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * closure still needed, on whether the Zeitgeist Movement should have a separate article or not. There is a new discussion here. Alternatively, the draft could use an Article for Creation request.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This RFC was archived by the archival bot. I have moved it back to the talk page.  Discussion at the talk page is a bit contentious again.  The !votes in the RFC appear to have 14-7 in favor of splitting the movement off into its own article.  There is argument over whether that is enough of a consensus.  A formal close, preferably by an administrator, is requested.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Consensus is to Split. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bill Cosby
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bill Cosby ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  22:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:March Against Monsanto
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:March Against Monsanto ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sam Walton (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:H:IPA
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:H:IPA ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ [uninvolved non-admin] MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ [uninvolved non-admin] MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No need for a formal close, original poster has gone ahead with a bot approval request. Sam Walton (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. Thank you for reviewing the discussion, . Cunard (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Piketty
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Thomas Piketty ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  20:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, nothing to formally close. Sam Walton (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. Thank you for reviewing the discussion, . Cunard (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta (b. 1943)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta (b. 1943) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No need for a formal close. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. Thank you for reviewing the discussion, . Cunard (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Philip Benedict
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Philip Benedict ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   04:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Quint Studer
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Quint Studer ? See the subsection Talk:Quint Studer. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No concerns have been raised so I've noted that this can probably be added. No real need for a formal close. Sam Walton (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. I made the requested edit. Cunard (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Russian financial crisis (2014–present)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Russian financial crisis (2014–present) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ LavaBaron (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Sam Walton (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Siachen Glacier
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Siachen Glacier ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  19:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:North Yemen Civil War
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:North Yemen Civil War ? The opening poster wrote: "Should this edit be removed from the article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's really nothing to close here, only two users posted anything. Sam Walton (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. Cunard (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Poland
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Poland ? Please consider the closure review Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272 of an earlier close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ LavaBaron (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1982 Lebanon War
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1982 Lebanon War ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Sam Walton (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Chinese language
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chinese language ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ LavaBaron (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:UNFD
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:UNFD ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  19:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Tyson Fury
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Tyson Fury ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 08:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌. Discussion is in an archive, editors are free to reopen the debate if it is still a live issue. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reopened to allow for closure. Cunard (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✔️ – i.e., marked as stale above. No new arguments why it wouldn't be stale are provided. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Gamergate controversy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌. Discussion is in an archive, editors are free to reopen the debate if it is still a live issue. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reopened to allow for closure. Cunard (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't make work. That page is very contentious and unarchiving 40KB of junk is not helpful, and has been reverted by another editor. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 40 is "junk". Pinging, the discussion's initiator. Masem, if you think a closure would not be helpful in resolving your concerns, perhaps by recommending another RfC for your alternative proposal: "The word 'members' can be changed to 'participants' or something else if that's the issue. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)" then I withdraw this closure request. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✔️ i.e., was marked as stale above. No arguments have been provided to contradict such qualification. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 8
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 8 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌. Discussion is in an archive, editors are free to reopen the debate if it is still a live issue. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cunard (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox television
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✔️ closed by on Aug 5th.  AlbinoFerret  16:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Passing 48 hours, 14:2 supermajority in favor of the sanctions being enacted. An uninvolved administrator can close at any time IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Endorse I'd like to second GWH here. There is an unambiguous consensus to TBAN Elvey. There hasn't been any new discussion in two days. We need someone to close it out and log the sanctions.--Adam in MO Talk 01:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I, too, would like to make sure that an uninvolved administrator sees this. It's an easy call, but it needs to get done before the bot archives the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

✅, by. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Don't feed the divas
Anyone want to take a crack at Wikipedia talk:Don't feed the divas? I gave it a relist a while ago and have been monitoring it a bit, but I'm not sure how to close it. Been in the backlog for a few weeks now. Jenks24 (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Minority language
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Minority language ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I question if this RFC is in the right place. It probably should have been done at MOS as its asking for more than just the article in question. An admin should probably close this one. AlbinoFerret  22:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a well-attended RfC, and MOS was notified of the discussion. Much of the point of RfC and the system for "subscribing" to random RfC invites is that it makes less difference today exactly what page a consensus discussion is held on, as long as people show up and participate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, Ill close it then. AlbinoFerret  14:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  15:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers ? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Please consider the earlier discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 150 in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Module talk:Main
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Module talk:Main ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  15:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Heather Bresch
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Heather Bresch ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✔️ Closed by on Aug 4th.  AlbinoFerret  16:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Race (biology)/Archive 1
Should be speedily closed. It's the proposal as the previous one (by its only 'Support' !voter) in slightly different wording: merge all the content to Breed and wherever else, so the title can be redirected to the Race disambiguation page (same as nom's response to the RM, too). Every objection to the first edition applies to the second, and it raises no new issues, ideas, evidence, anything. It's pure WP:PARENT, and the result sought is literally not possible under policy, because we can't merge completely unrelated topics. This noise is disruptive of the ongoing RM. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not really the place for arguments of the merits of the issue, they should be done at the discussion/RfC. A speedy close at this moment (total of 3 !votes) would look like a WP:SUPERVOTE, especially by someone who has closed already a similar discussion on the same page. Either somebody else closes it early, or I may have a look at some later time. Kraxler (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not meaning to inject merits arguments; it was just that it's rehash of what was closed pretty much moments earlier. It's going nowhere anyway (the proposer has even said so, and appears to have come around), so it won't need a formal close.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  17:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Palestine grid
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Palestine grid ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  16:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kill 'Em All
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kill 'Em All ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  16:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikidata
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at this RfC – including whether there should be a follow-up RfC (and what should be discussed). - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush
Could someone please close this RfC that's been open for about four weeks? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers ? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of European cities by population
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of European cities by population ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Public Storage/1
The questions are (1) were there problems with the first review, and, (2) should the article be GA-delisted? It seems reasonably clear that the consensus is "while there were no "problems with the first review - it seems fine," because a challenge was raised it should be de-listed and re-reviewed for reasons of due diligence. This opinion was expressed by SilkTork and agreed by Prhartcom, LavaBaron (the first reviewer), and CorporateM (the nominator). Three other editors, though disagreeing with the rationale for delisting, supported the delisting itself." Could an uninvolved editor assess this for close? LavaBaron (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would urge the uninvolved editor to assess carefully, since LavaBaron is proposing the closure wording he wants, and there have indeed been people who have found significant problems with the original review and its swiftness and lack of depth, as witness the sheer number of issues raised in the GAR, which was begun right after the original GA review concluded. (The original review was opened and completed on LavaBaron's first day of GA reviewing.) Some of the opinions of people mentioned above have even changed. Thank you for your time. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, as I noted Three other editors, though disagreeing with the rationale for delisting, supported the delisting itself. While the strong consensus of editors indicated there were no problems with the review, you and another editor expressed your belief (in colorful ways like "you are unqualified" and "[you're] blind") there were problems and I have no problem acknowledging that minority during closure (though would suggest we avoid using abusive characterizations of other editors (such as "[you're] blind") in a closing rationale). Also, for clarification, I did not provide "closure wording," I provided an accurate summary of the situation. The closing editor is always free to use any wording he fancies. As someone who does a lot of closures myself, I know an accurate summary of the situation is always appreciated. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 07:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ramadan
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ramadan ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ RFC was witdran by proposer who removed the template and marked it closed. Just to be safe I asked them to make sure. AlbinoFerret  20:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton
Nothing new or useful has been added to this discussion for days, and no new comments at all for over a day. There is no point to allowing as picayune a matter as the presentation of a name in an infobox to drag on any longer than it already has, so I request that a determination of consensus be made and that the discussion be closed. The entire article is currently locked down over this issue, so a swift resolution will enable a return to normal editing. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  04:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC) AlbinoFerret 19:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been 3 new !votes in the last two days and discussion seems quite active. If it has slowed a little then I would suggest it is because it is a holiday weekend in the US and people are busy.
 * +1 !vote since this was filed.
 * The subject of the discussion is a detail too minor to merit more than a week's worth of discussion, and the entire page is administratively locked pending the outcome of the discussion on this minor detail. Given the high visibility of this article, that favors a quick closure. During the week when discussion was "quite active" it was also highly circular, and contentious to the point that the aforementioned administrative lock was imposed. Lastly, after over thirty editors have weighed in (the "+1 !vote since this was filed" is probably because this was filed), opinions remain about evenly split, so there is no realistic hope of a consensus being achieved through additional argument. The only outcome of further discussion is likely to be further rehashing of points that have already been made, and a further descent into negativity. bd2412  T 21:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If the closure ends in a no consensus then the protection will need to run its full course per the condition of clear consensus that was set upon it (another 6 days). If a clear consensus can be had then I would be happy to enforce it, I don't care what goes in the infobox but my concerns are in trying to prevent the edit-warring from breaking out again. If that happens then we will be looking at a one month protection unless the individual edit warriors are handled accordingly.
 * A condition unilaterally set by you, and able to be overridden by the community. It appears that you are attempting to WP:OWN the entire discussion. I therefore request that you recuse yourself from further administrative involvement in this matter. bd2412  T 00:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I exercised my discretion per WP:FULL and WP:PREFER as any admin may, following that policy to the letter. It states "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above)." Further, I stated this at the ANI thread and there was no uninvolved admin that took exception or asked for this to be altered. On the contrary, it received support by consensus from those that commented. You have !voted and are involved and others have related this to you as well. This looks like you are trying to do a run around and undermine an administrative action because you don't like it. I'm owning my actions but certainly not that article. There has been one edit request which was handled since it was locked so that isn't a big deal. The one that should recuse is you.
 * I have nothing to recuse from, as I am not seeking to take any administrative action in this matter; the only such action that I have undertaken was to undo your ill-considered block of a fellow admin - which, apparently, earned your enmity. You would do well to engage in some self-reflection and consider whether there is really any reason that you need to continue being attached to this matter at all. There are other admins in Wikipedia. bd2412  T 02:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No enmity. I am concerned from your top post "The entire article is currently locked down over this issue, so a swift resolution will enable a return to normal editing" combined with a later post "...opinions remain about evenly split, so there is no realistic hope of a consensus being achieved through additional argument" and I'm drawing the conclusion that you want someone to find a no consensus just so that page protection might be lifted but that is against the purpose of having the editors work at consensus per WP:PREFER. It was faulty logic to assume that a no consensus outcome would mean page protection would be nullified prematurely and that is the only real point that I've been making. Well, I do think the request is premature because other !voters may still opine to help achieve some form of consensus. An essay not yet in project space, Consensus requires patience comes to mind. Regarding the unblock, you disregarded consulting me as you should have per policy which took from me the ability to correct my mistake. Another admin came to my talk page and explained about the edit conflict and then I came to address the issue finding that you had already decided on unblocking. It would have been cleared up anyway but I did perceive that you were lacking in respect towards me. I'm not holding onto any grudge though. But now things have the appearance that you are trying to undo another admin action of mine and I'm left wondering why? Just as you have noted about me "whether there is really any reason that you need to continue being attached to this matter at all...", I'm left to wonder the same about you. I didn't initiate the above. Nonetheless, if a no consensus outcome is found upon closure then I would not object to a review of the protection at ANI and whether it remains necessary. I would abide by whatever that consensus may be.
 * I made a bad block once; another admin removed it, and I thanked them for doing so, because the expediency of undoing an errant administrative action outweighed the protocol of waiting to see how I would deal with it. We police each other; there's no one else to do it. With respect to the current infobox discussion, this is the hangover from a dispute that has been going on since 2007. It doesn't need to stretch on further. The discussion is dead, and the idea that a consensus will form in another week is certainly not something that would be suggested by the history of the matter. For the same reason, I have no intention of dragging this back to ANI, to be relitigated in another forum for another week. bd2412  T 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Can I get an uninvolved administrator to look at this? bd2412  T 00:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strange as it might seem, the more you post and show there is a heated controversy, the less likely you will find takers after only 9 days. AlbinoFerret  04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - where do you get "only 9 days" from? The discussion began at Talk:Hillary Clinton on June 12, which is 23 days ago. It specifically says in the survey section that this is a continuation of the two previous discussions over the past month. bd2412  T 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While discussions on the topic preceded the RFC, the RFC started on June 26th . AlbinoFerret  12:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - I am troubled by the implication that any editor can basically make any discussion drag on without end by merely creating a new section and rephrasing the question under discussion there as a new RfC. bd2412  T 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to take issue with 's claim above: "The discussion is dead, and the idea that a consensus will form in another week is certainly not something that would be suggested by the history of the matter." That might be true if we measured consensus by counting votes; but we all know they're !votes, and we don't count them. So consensus must be measured by assessing and weighing the arguments. By that measure, I, for one, see consensus in that discussion. There is an (albeit undocumented) convention clearly and strongly supported implicitly by the community at large for reflecting the article title in the infobox heading, a convention adhered to by the vast majority of our articles, including this article since its inception. No good reason to start ignoring that convention now in this article has been presented. If there was little or no objection to making them different in some case, that would be one thing. But clearly in this case there is objection, so the convention should be followed. That's following consensus. --В²C ☎ 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's the problem with "undocumented" conventions in a nutshell. We have a status quo ante, and a rule that absent consensus for a change, the status quo ante should continue. We have a lengthy move discussion preceding the current dispute that argues all the points of Article titles, but makes not one single mention of a change to the substance of the article. We have a roughly even split in the opinions expressed on the matter, with reasonable arguments being raised on both sides, and an absence of policy mandating a specific outcome. bd2412  T 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with undocumented conventions? Do we really have to document every convention? Are some conventions so obvious that no documentation is necessary? Isn't this one of them? I daresay this might be the first time it has ever even been challenged. The problem isn't the undocumented convention. The problem is the stubborn refusal of some to acknowledge it. --В²C ☎ 21:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * An undocumented, unacknowledged convention with many counter-examples isn't much of a convention. Jonathunder (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * With 5 million articles even .01% counter-examples are going to be "many", so having "many" counter-examples is not persuasive evidence against a convention. What you need to do is hit WP:RANDOM at least 10 times and see how often you do or don't get matching titles and info box headings (not including disambiguation and redoing hits without infoboxes). Here we go.
 * Skomarje ✅
 * Bill Wallace (American football) ✅ (disambiguated title, plain heading)
 * Abdul Aziz Mirza ✅
 * Loubens, Ariège ✅ (disambiguated title, plain heading)
 * Narasin ✅
 * Edir Macedo ✅
 * Bhiloda ✅
 * Kevin Callan ✅
 * Make It Big ✅
 * Aura (Miles Davis album) ✅ (disambiguated title, plain heading)
 * That's about as good as convention gets on Wikipedia. --В²C ☎ 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - since you are of the opinion that a policy-based consensus has already been established, would you agree that it would be appropriate for an admin to close the discussion at this time? There is not going to be any great shift in participation, and the argument has already become circular and repetitive on both sides. bd2412  T 23:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I believe that that is the correct way to read consensus, in practice many don't seem to do that. Besides, the discussion is ongoing and I don't favor closing ongoing discussions. The normal time for an rfc is often a month, isn't it? --В²C ☎ 01:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The RM that led to the current dispute was opened on April 26 and closed on May 8, a total of 12 days. I can't imagine why it would take longer to settle the name in the infobox than the name in the article title. bd2412  T 02:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

--В²C ☎ 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC) The issue here is that somebody thought the article should be fully-protected for two freaking weeks. Lift the protection on a probationary basis; anybody who's aware of the contention and takes to edit warring, can quite simply be blocked for disruption. This is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit; it's not the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, unless two or three people can't keep their cool. Alakzi (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't see a problem with unlocking the article with the understanding that the infobox heading is to be left alone until this rfc is resolved. --В²C ☎ 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my request for closure of this discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It'll have been a month by July 26. I'd suggest an Admin close it soon after – it looks to me like there is a measurable consensus now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has already been 6 weeks since the whole infobox discussion began; the survey started a month ago was just the latest iteration of that same discussion. bd2412  T 15:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton
Discussion has tapered off and it should be formally closed. Calidum T&#124;C 01:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, the Talk:Hillary Clinton discussion is also ripe for closing. bd2412  T 15:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅  Sandstein   15:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person ? See the subsection Template talk:Infobox person. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  18:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   15:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Herbert Hope Risley
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Herbert Hope Risley ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  18:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Americans for Prosperity
While this RfC has not run the full thirty days, a vote has not been added in 7 days. Requests have been made to close the RfC by editors involved, and the original poster refuses to close it - I'd ask you to look under "Arbitrary Section Break 02" to get a good sense of the willingness of the original poster to work with his fellow editors. An administrator's close would be highly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 18:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please decline this request. This RfC was launched 6 July 2015 and 30 days would be 6 August 2015. Discussion is ongoing. We will be back 6 August 2015 requesting a formal uninvolved third party administrative close since the article is under discretionary sanctions, see you then, thanks. Kindly allow time for wider community feedback. We have no deadline and no reason not to go the full default 30 days and get as much diverse community feedback as possible. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the discussion is now about the clearly improper phrasing and improper canvassing by the proposer. In my opinion, it should be closed as invalid.  But, in any case, Comatmebro is correct that no vote or comment related to the proposal (as opposed to comments about the RfC) has been added in 7 days.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should be closed and HughD should probably face sanctions for cross posting/spamming. Springee (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "should probably face sanctions" Other venues are available to you for your editor behavior concerns. Your comment is off-topic here at this request for closure notice board. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "no vote or comment related to the proposal...has been added in 7 days" Not true. Discussion is vigorous. Please see:
 * That's just the last few days. Additional diffs available upon request. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC) We'll be back next week, thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I stated in my original post that no vote had been cast in the last 7 days - which was accurate - I stated nothing about comments related to the proposal. Please do not use my WP:ANRFC to lash out at other editors. Other venues are available to you for that. Your comment is off-topic here. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW I just cast a !vote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just the last few days. Additional diffs available upon request. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC) We'll be back next week, thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I stated in my original post that no vote had been cast in the last 7 days - which was accurate - I stated nothing about comments related to the proposal. Please do not use my WP:ANRFC to lash out at other editors. Other venues are available to you for that. Your comment is off-topic here. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW I just cast a !vote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just the last few days. Additional diffs available upon request. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC) We'll be back next week, thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I stated in my original post that no vote had been cast in the last 7 days - which was accurate - I stated nothing about comments related to the proposal. Please do not use my WP:ANRFC to lash out at other editors. Other venues are available to you for that. Your comment is off-topic here. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW I just cast a !vote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: There's an ANI post up about this dispute now, as well, alleging canvassing and campaigning by an involved editor. Posting here in case that affects how/when the RFC is closed. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At WP:ANI reporting user and commenting user  expressed concern regarding the notification of Talk:Americans for Prosperity to our colleagues at WP:CONSERVATISM. Since there is no deadline, we can include  and  in our consensus to close Talk:Americans for Prosperity. We can hold off on the close of Talk:Americans for Prosperity until we hear from them. Dialog on  Talk:Americans for Prosperity continues, and the most recent !vote was Sunday 2 August 2015. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Seeing that I never suggested extending the comment period in order to hear input from members of WikiProject Conservatism, but rather asked you why you never notified that project (you never answered my question, or notified that project), I find your question about how long I would extend the comment period odd. I've never advocated extending it. And neither you or I have any control over when it the comment period closes, since we are both involved parties and can't close it ourselves. Our opinions on when it should close don't really matter at all. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. You can find my answer in my "initial statement" at the ANI filing, following "WP:RFC reminds us...", sorry you missed it. As per WP:Requests_for_comment, we can extend with consensus. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not advocate extending the RFC beyond the standard time frame and I am therefore not a part of any consensus seeking to extend that time frame. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅, for what it's worth (which is not much). Guy (Help!) 09:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy, please note that the RfC in question is still open. The RfC that was closed was a draft version.  If you click on the link at the top of this section it takes you to an RfC that is still open.  Thanks, Springee (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, at WP:ANI reporting user expressed concern regarding the notification of Talk:Americans for Prosperity to our colleagues at WP:CONSERVATISM. Since there is no deadline, please hold off on a formal administrative close of Talk:Americans for Prosperity until we hear from regarding our option under WP:Requests_for_comment to extend to improve our participation. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy, I do not support the above attempt to WP:GAME the system in order to extend the life of the RfC. Springee (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully request formal, administrator close of this RfC Talk:Americans for Prosperity, since article Americans for Prosperity is currently under active discretionary sanctions. Please see WP:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log. The target article of this RfC, Americans for Prosperity, is at the intersection of several active arbitration committee findings, including WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement, and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change, broadly construed. The article talk page and the RfC discussion has been contentious, generating several WP:ANI filings. The additional accountability of a formal administrative close by an uninvolved, neutral administrator is necessary to ensure community confidence in the close. Thank you very much. Hugh (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent new !votes include today 6 August, 2 August, 1 August, and 31 July. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although Hugh is banned from this discussion, I think closure is appropriate, and requires an independent review by an admin. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @, could you link the discussion that still needs to be addressed? The draft section and this RfC are both already closed. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 23:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's resolved now, thanks.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167 ? See the subsection, an RfC, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌. Discussion is in an archive, editors are free to reopen the debate if it is still a live issue. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reopened to allow for closure. Cunard (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The unarchiving was reverted with the edit summary "don't unarchive ancient discussions". I don't think a discussion last active a month-and-half ago is an "ancient" discussion. RfCs are typically closed between 30-90 days after they're opened. I reiterate my request for a closure because the result could affect what happens to the English variant notice template. Cunard (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary. The thread immediately below that one nearly unanimously deprecated that entire family of templates. I'm in the process of preparing a WP:TFD. We have unobtrusive mainspace templates (e.g. that perform this maintenance categorization, without bludgeoning people with annoying, huge, WP:OWNish banners like the  templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the update about your plan to prepare a WP:TFD. I withdraw this closure request as no longer necessary since this issue has not been forgotten. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * About half-way done with drafting it. It's very tedious and I'm taking breaks to work on other stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive226

 * Procedural request; thread originally appeared here.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 01:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Could we get a review and close over at BLPN on the discussion of Roosh V by an uninvolved admin? It's been open for over a week, and discussion of the topic has been dead for a few days. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ – note that I didn't post a decision upon closure at the BLPN section, just referred to a more recent related listing at another noticeboard, which normally could lead to a conclusion of the discussion. Please check whether I handled this correctly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ - The discussion at RSN is unrelated to the discussion at BLPN. The discussion at RSN is about CJAD radio and content added from that source, the discussion on BLPN is about using the Anti Defamation League as a source on itself with regards to content on a BLP.  Please either re-open the BLPN discussion or provide a proper closure for the BLPN discussion. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ (closure ammended) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo
Administrators, is there any chance one of you could close this? A non-admin stepped into a really complicated RfC and kind of made a mess of closing it, and we really could use a full-on administrative close. Thank you. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 21:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Tvx1 16:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have opened a closure review at Administrators' noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Boomerang situation; would someone uninvolved consider closing this?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 03:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Watts Up With That
There is some debate about whether or not the wording of the RfC makes sense, which the closer will need to take a look at, but some kind of resolution is still needed. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 01:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   16:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Succession to the Throne Act, 2013
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   16:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
Would an uninvolved editor please assess Talk:Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre? Thanks. ? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  13:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrats
Would an experienced editor ,Please assess the consensus and close. .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ AlbinoFerret  18:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bitcoin
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus. Its been more than 30 days and the last comment was on Aug 1st. . AlbinoFerret  07:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 17:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs
Hi there, 30 day RfC has expired. Would appreciate some closure on this matter. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Guy (Help!) 10:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 121
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 121. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 04:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done – MOS:IDENTITY (and related guidance like WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines) was updated after the initiation of the RfC, with enough support by the participants in that VPP discussion, making a formal closure to the original VPP discussion a superfluous exercise, leave alone whether it would still be possible to provide an adequate closure with many early comments in that discussion referring to the former wording of the MOS guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think a close is warranted, and MOS:IDENTITY should be updated to reflect the consensus at the RfC. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Empire State Building
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Empire State Building ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * doneTvx1 13:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability ? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * doneTvx1 13:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Consensus
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Consensus ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * done Tvx1 13:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Portal talk:Current events
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Portal talk:Current events ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) done Tvx1 13:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 122
This RfC has been open for well over 30 days—would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * already done RfC was closed by User:cyberpower678 on August 17. Kraxler (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC).

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh) ? Please consider Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * done I would have liked to see more activity there, though.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat:Online 00:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Park Yeon-mi
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Park Yeon-mi ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Done AlbinoFerret  19:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  20:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Yelp
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Yelp ? The opening poster wrote: "Is the following sentence acceptable (NPOV, not undue, reliably sourced, etc.): 'Yelp also came into criticism by the Los Angeles Times in 2014 for the practice of selling competitor's ads to run on top of business listings, and allegedly offering to have the ads removed for a $75 monthly fee.(source)" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  23:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Walashma dynasty
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Walashma dynasty ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  00:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:SEMA
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:SEMA ? Please consider the earlier discussion Talk:SEMA in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  00:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Hindu philosophy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Hindu philosophy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  01:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Hindu philosophy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Hindu philosophy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done AlbinoFerret  01:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)/Archive 3
Will an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)/Archive 3? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In view of the contentiousness of this article and of recent disruptive editing, an administrative close may be preferred. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * done I hope the close is satisfactory.  If you have any concerns, please feel free to contact me.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat:Limited Access 17:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Genetically modified food
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genetically modified food ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus. Looks like its done, last comment was on August 5th. . AlbinoFerret  03:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * done - Consensus against inclusion of the proposed wording. - MrX 19:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gog and Magog/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gog and Magog/Archive 2 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * done - A compromise was reached during the RfC. - MrX 19:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Debut
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Debut ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done - NAC closed. - MrX 19:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song)
Not enough voters, but it's been too long. --George Ho (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done - Consensus exists to use both cover images, and to use the American version as the lead image. - MrX 17:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Pirate Bay
Comments on the RfC have tapered off. Any experienced editor or admin should be able to close this. Thank you. - MrX 19:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The entire larger Talk:The Pirate Bay thread in which this RfC is embedded appears to be moot and should be closed. The whole squabble about including links to all of TPB's domains is now pointless, because their main thepiratebay.se domain is back, and round-robins to their various extant servers, so only that one link is needed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC needs to be properly closed. The status of the domains has not changed since the RfC was started, and the existence of the other domains means that they will added to the article by one side of the dispute, and removed from the article from the other side of the dispute, which is what the RfC is trying to address. There is the any secondary question of whether the article should have any external link to a ThePirateBay URL. - MrX 11:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Done But for some reason the closing statement wont show in the RFC box. AlbinoFerret  19:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States
Would an uninvolved administrator please close these discussions:

EllenCT (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Influence of the wealthy / RFC outcome: unanimous support for this RFC outcome;
 * Phrasing for inequality RFC segment. No consensus to reverse the RFC outcome; and
 * Continued attempts to contravene the RFC outcome.


 * Those aren't neutral descriptions. The RFC did not have anything close to "unanimous support" (and indeed the same material had been totally rejected in at least two previous discussions on the same talk page that each involved more editors than your one, finally successful attempt did:, ), though everyone accepted its outcome, and no one has attempted to "reverse" it. The RFC closer only stated that the material could be included "in some form", and it has been. The dispute has been the exact wording of the text inclusion, whether it should be your preferred wording stating the unattributed conclusions of your sources in expanded detail as fact in Wikipedia's voice or whether it should be neutrally worded to reflect the expert disagreement on the controversial, inherently subjective matter and broadened to a detail level appropriate for a country summary article. Also, there should probably be a direct link to this section  with the scholarly sources I provided disputing your sources' conclusions (and pointing out that even your own sources concede they don't represent the expert consensus, meaning your wording doesn't even accurately reflect them). Since I posted those additional sources no editor has supported your wording, and the only other editor to bother participating in the discussion has opposed it. Clearly your wording does not currently enjoy consensus (or source) support. To admin - if this post is inappropriate here I apologize. I'm not trying to start a content debate on this page, but I wasn't sure how else to respond to the slanted characterizations above. VictorD7 (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Update - If anyone does examine this, he/she should also take into count these RFCs:, , . EllenCT has been launching overlapping RFCs every couple of weeks trying to include specific factoids on the "inequality" theme. The first one was rejected, the closing consensus being that the proposal was too overly detailed and convoluted in a niche topic for a broad summary country article. The second one hasn't yet been closed, but only has 3 supports and at least 10 clear opposes (with 1 criticizing the RFC as "confusing") for essentially the same reasons. The third one is still relatively new but so far has no support and 5 opposes. This is pertinent here because a strong consensus has emerged against including the type of cherry-picked, niche inequality detail EllenCT has been pushing. In deciding whether or not to allow her to expand the segment primarily in question here, especially while purging and disregarding the disputing source material, these more recent talk page sentiment developments should be taken into account. VictorD7 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Done, i.e. I closed Talk:United States. Recombined summaries of discussions that have taken place elsewhere can not be closed with an actionable outcome. Please list discussions you want to see closed one at the time, i.e. on this page one section header per RfC or self-contained discussion. Link to the section header where a discussion or RfC starts, not the nth subsection that gives some overview of some related or unrelated discussions as you would like to see it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Could an uninvolved admin please assess and close this ? It should have been submitted a week ago when it became obvious that new community opinions weren't forthcoming. Legobot removed the template, but I've restored it. As everyone would be aware, it's a highly problematic article and edit warring has broken out over interpretations of the consensus. No one involved would dare close it, and it in desperate need being closed. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * close Mdann52 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Would an uninvolved admin please put a stop to this?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 00:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done ANRFC is not a tool to "put a stop" to an ongoing discussion. Early closes are only considered "if consensus becomes clear (...) and discussion has slowed" (see first point on top of this page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)