Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications.

Ball1.png

Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.

Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for closure is 30 days (opened on or before 25 September 2014); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

Ball2.png

If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.

Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. Be prepared to wait for someone to review the discussion. If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.

Billiardball3.png

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have.

A request for comment discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for articles for deletion and move discussions—see Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for details.

Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{close}} or {{done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.

Contents

Requests for closure[edit]

Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation (initiated 30 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

As a side-effect of using Module:Citation/CS1 to render the Citation template, all the warning messages issued for Citation Style 1 will now be issued for Citation. (Many of these warning messages are not turned on by default yet.) This means that editors who use the Citation template will have to consult Help:Citation Style 1 to determine the acceptable parameter values. Does the user community ratify this change?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This does not appear to require administration, thus I recommend finding a template-editor to assess and close it. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Now archived at Template talk:Citation/Archive 7#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates? (initiated 30 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 113#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates?. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 12[edit]

Even though this from over a month ago, there are still a couple of discussions here that haven't been closed yet. JDDJS (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Creation Museum#RfC A. A. Gill[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Creation Museum#RfC A. A. Gill (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Request for comments: Inclusion of more than "theological historical criticism" scholarship[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Request for comments: Inclusion of more than "theological historical criticism" scholarship (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 35#Request for comments: Inclusion of more than "theological historical criticism" scholarship. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Negrin#Rfc: Possible copyright problem[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Richard Negrin#Rfc: Possible copyright problem (initiated 24 August 2014)? Is there a consensus that there is a copyright violation or a reasonable possibility that there is a copyright violation in which case the article should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Inclusion of future job positions in infobox, list, etc.[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Inclusion of future job positions in infobox, list, etc. (initiated 28 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

This dispute has to do with the appointment of Catholic bishops, but I am seeking a wider consensus, because in over three years none has been reached, and there has been no central place to discuss it exhaustively.

If there is no consensus in the discussion, perhaps the closer can offer the RfC's participants advice about how to better frame and publicize the discussion to encourage participation by more uninvolved editors. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for comment and Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for Comment 2[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for comment (initiated 25 August 2014) and Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for Comment 2 (initiated 31 August 2014)? The opening poster for the first discussion wrote: "Should this article be redirected to Ancient Macedonians?" The opening poster for the second discussion wrote:

Should the lead sentence of this article call the ancient Macedonian kingdom a "kingdom", without further specification, or a "Greek kingdom"?

Please consider the later related discussions Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for CONSENSUS which respects history, reliable sources and common sense and Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#REQUEST FOR A TRULY NEUTRAL CONSENSUS in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - Possible disruption of the RFC process has been reported at WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Link to AN discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC Problem at Macedonia (ancient kingdom). If closing these two discussions would not be helpful, then I withdraw these closure requests. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 47#Date ranges as titles and Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 48#Proposal/question: Should we disambiguate year-range work titles?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 47#Date ranges as titles (initiated 1 July 2014) and the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 48#Proposal/question: Should we disambiguate year-range work titles? (initiated 8 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Star Wars#RfC: Should the template be divided into canon/non-canon sections?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Star Wars#RfC: Should the template be divided into canon/non-canon sections? (initiated 1 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

As can be seen in the discussions on Template talk:Star Wars, there is a dispute as to whether Template:Star Wars should only be divided by media type, or whether it should be further divided into canon/non-canon sections.

If there is no consensus, please consider advising the participants how to better publicize the discussion to encourage participation by more uninvolved editors. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Anjem Choudary#RfC: Anjem Choudary and Partying[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anjem Choudary#RfC: Anjem Choudary and Partying (initiated 26 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout#AFD history[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout#AFD history (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team/Userright RfC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team/Userright RfC (initiated 30 August 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. An editor wrote:

And another reminder about the RFC for a global group to supersede this one (see m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group for that. Also, regarding the above - the edit filter was already set up but needs to be modified to meet en.wiki (it was simply copied from Commons).

Please mention that m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group may supersede the userright set up in this RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Distinguishing between New Pages Patrol reviews and AfC reviews[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Distinguishing between New Pages Patrol reviews and AfC reviews (initiated 2 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment Not archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 114#Distinguishing between New Pages Patrol reviews and AfC reviews. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Colourisation of images[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Colourisation of images (initiated 15 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

There is a developing trend for colleagues to colourise b&w images and use the new version in articles. This is often done via Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop.

There are two types of case where this happens:

I think we should develop a clear and agreed policy on when such images may or may not be used, and how and when the fact that a colourised image is shown must be declared.

The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 4[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 5[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 8[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 9#Category:Writers by ethnic or national descent[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 9#Category:Writers by ethnic or national descent? Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#AfD/IAR review[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#AfD/IAR review (initiated 2 October 2014)? After closing the discussion, please leave a link to your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Saturday Comes Sunday (2nd nomination). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner)#Survey on infobox[edit]

  • Don't want to close it myself while (semi-)involved, and for the general sensitivity of the matter.
  • Although the outcome of the survey appears unanimous at first glance, and for the article in question the apparent outcome has already been implemented ([1]), I'd request a more formal closure of the survey itself, for the main reason proferred by the supporters: "An infobox is consistent with almost all the articles in template:Anton Bruckner. They should all have a similar infobox since it is highly likely that a reader interested in one of Bruckner's works will be interested in other works, and will expect a "one of a series" visual identity." So, does this survey imply Bruckner composition articles can be generally "infoboxed", or would additional and/or more general surveys be needed for that? If so, advice on how to conduct these would be more than welcome (...avoiding wikidrama)
  • That this would already have been settled without formal closure to the survey, can be seen as incorrect here --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bhagavad Gita#Merge request[edit]

Obvious disagreement. 31 days gone, no one has commented. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Restored closure request removed here. The close requester believes in good faith that a close would be helpful. I agree. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her#RFC - Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own film review?[edit]

Would a fair minded, uninvolved party please assess the consensus of this survey? Further relevant discussion that preceded and provides context for the RFC can be found here. VictorD7 (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq[edit]

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

Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?[edit]

This RfC concerns the editorial decision of whether an article about a specific episode of the television show Game of Thrones should name the exact chapters of the novel(s) upon which it was based. The results are likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. This dispute has been going on since April and most of the participants seem eager for its end. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Endorse closure request per WP:SNOW. See the previous RfC close at Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content?. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Animal name move requests[edit]

It would be great if someone could sort through one or more of the following move requests related to animal names, some of which have been open since August: Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014, Talk:Anglo-Nubian#Requested moves, Talk:Flemish Giant#Requested moves, Talk:Harz Red mountain cattle#Requested move, Talk:Canadian Speckle Park#Requested moves, Talk:Corsican Cattle#Requested moves, Talk:Asturian Mountain#Requested move, Talk:Dutch Landrace#Requested moves, Talk:American Sable#Requested moves, Talk:Blue Grey#Requested moves, Talk:Danish Protest pig#Requested move, Talk:Bronze turkey#Requested move, and Talk:Buff turkey#Requested move. Help would be much appreciated. Dekimasuよ! 17:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sigmund Freud[edit]

The RfC ended a week ago on Freud and bot have removed the template. Could someone offer a close to the RfC which has ended over a week ago? FelixRosch (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:OpenOffice#RfC: How/if to include NeoOffice, LibreOffice, etc.[edit]

Another OpenOffice one. This time to do with questions on a related dab page. --Tóraí (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Previous RfCs are Talk:OpenOffice.org#RfC on the topic and Talk:OpenOffice.org#Second RfC, this time on NPOV. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 4 1[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 8#Category:Durrani Empire people‎‎‎[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at:

Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Paulin[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tom Paulin (initiated 8 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Is the "Controversy" section in this BLP as of 17:00 8 Sep 2014 [2] of proper, insufficient, or excessive weight to the entire BLP? Does the section as constituted comply with WP:NPOV?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 13#RfC: Should ages be mentioned in the lead?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 13#RfC: Should ages be mentioned in the lead? (initiated 4 September 2014)? Two other RfCs about the article have been closed recently: Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 14#Robbery in lede RFC and Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 16#RfC: Should article mention Brown had no (adult) criminal record?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sigmund Freud#Changes to Freud Infobox size of 44 names[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sigmund Freud#Changes to Freud Infobox size of 44 names (initiated 9 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Those who wish to Support the short number of names written in the Infobox should indicate their position as a "Support" comment, and those who wish to maintain a list of 44 names should indicate "Oppose" concerning a shorter version.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:James Randi Educational Foundation#Is info on Randi's income from a primary source allowable?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James Randi Educational Foundation#Is info on Randi's income from a primary source allowable? (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gina Rinehart#Chairman/chairwoman/chairperson[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gina Rinehart#Chairman/chairwoman/chairperson (initiated 12 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Time to settle this once and for all, so we can stop this edit war. I have locked the article so you can't even add how much more money she has today, before you settle this. (Ms. Rineheart, if you don't mind, I could do with some money.) Simple: chairman or chairwoman or chairperson?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nofel Izz#Reviewing sources with some suggestions for rewrites[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nofel Izz#Reviewing sources with some suggestions for rewrites (initiated 3 August 2014)? See Talk:Nofel Izz#RfC, where the opening poster wrote: "Could editors please review the sources and comment on their quality? (All the sources are listed above, though there may be a few listed that have since been removed from the article.)" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Chevalier d'Eon#RfC: Should the historic figure of the Chevalier d'Éon be referred to as a man or a woman?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chevalier d'Eon#RfC: Should the historic figure of the Chevalier d'Éon be referred to as a man or a woman? (initiated 20 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

The Chevalier d'Éon, was an 18th century French diplomat, spy and soldier, whose first 49 years were spent as a man, and whose last 33 years were spent as a woman. Were the article to be covered by Biographies of living persons then the personal pronoun "she" would be appropriate, however for historic figures the choice is unclear and this has been subject to discussion and change in the article for the last 5 years. Should the article use "he" or "she" throughout, or a mixed approach?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#RfC: How should music BLPs approach the term "singer-songwriter"?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#RfC: How should music BLPs approach the term "singer-songwriter"? (initiated 20 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sam Brownback#Significant enough for lead?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sam Brownback#Significant enough for lead? (initiated 20 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Is the following statement significant enough in the context of Sam Brownback's career to warrant inclusion in the lead of his bio, as described in the MOS?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Prem Rawat#RfC on first sentence of the article[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prem Rawat#RfC on first sentence of the article (initiated 20 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Is it OK to replace the first sentence of the Prem Rawat article by "Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत), born on 10 December 1957, is an Indian American also known as Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, Balyogeshwar, Perfect Master, Lord of the Universe, inspirational speaker and Ambassador for Peace." — and if so, do we need additional references for that sentence, either re-using one or more of the 138 references already in the article, or new ones suggested above on this talk page and/or in Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 51#'Ambassador of Peace'?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)#RfC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)#RfC (initiated 24 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Does New York Magazine described Jones as “America’s leading conspiracy theorist”,[14] and the Southern Poverty Law Center describes him as "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America."[15] About being labeled a "conspiracy theorist", Jones has stated that he finds himself "proud to be listed as a thought criminal against Big Brother."[14] belong in the lead of this BLP as opposed to its prior position in the body of the BLP?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Richard O'Dwyer#RFC -- TVShack.net definition[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Richard O'Dwyer#RFC -- TVShack.net definition (initiated 24 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Should TVShack.net be defined as a "search engine," "linking site," or "website"?"

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Boxcar#RfC: Merge Covered goods wagon article into Boxcar[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Boxcar#RfC: Merge Covered goods wagon article into Boxcar (initiated 9 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I propose that the article Covered goods wagon is merger into article Boxcar." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 13#RfC: How should the events in Khan Yunis on July 6-7 be described?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 13#RfC: How should the events in Khan Yunis on July 6-7 be described? (initiated 7 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ashok Chakra Award#RfC: Correct Spelling?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ashok Chakra Award#RfC: Correct Spelling? (initiated 24 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#RfC: Proposed revert to disambiguated title and Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#Requested move[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#RfC: Proposed revert to disambiguated title (initiated 25 September 2014) and Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#Requested move (initiated 15 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Territorial disputes in the South China Sea#Ethnic minorities[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Territorial disputes in the South China Sea#Ethnic minorities (initiated 16 September 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Territorial disputes in the South China Sea#Request for comment (initiated 24 September 2014), where the opening poster wrote:

Should the content in the section Ethnic minorities in the Philippines and Vietnam by removed entirely, reduced, kept as is, or expanded? Please see the discussion above regarding previous debate regarding this topic.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of extinct mammals#RfC: Inclusion criteria[edit]

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

Talk:Arctic sea ice decline#RfC: Ice-free summer?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Arctic sea ice decline#RfC: Ice-free summer? (initiated 19 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should reliably-sourced predictions of people debating predicted effects climate change be included in the article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Artificial intelligence#RFC on Phrase "Human-like" in First Paragraph and Talk:Artificial intelligence#Another RfC on "human-like"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Artificial intelligence#RFC on Phrase "Human-like" in First Paragraph (initiated 2 October 2014) and Talk:Artificial intelligence#Another RfC on "human-like" (initiated 22 October 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for both discussions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Paulin#RfC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tom Paulin#RfC (initiated 8 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Is the "Controversy" section in this BLP as of 17:00 8 Sep 2014 [3] of proper, insufficient, or excessive weight to the entire BLP? Does the section as constituted comply with WP:NPOV?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Crossover thrash#Crossover bands[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Crossover thrash#Crossover bands (initiated 22 September 2014)? Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity#Request for comments on Open Letter to Angela Merkel[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity#Request for comments on Open Letter to Angela Merkelc (initiated 6 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Labour Party (UK)#"Democratic socialism"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Labour Party (UK)#"Democratic socialism" (initiated 13 September 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Labour Party (UK)#Request for comment (initiated 19 September 2014), where the opening poster wrote:

Should the "ideology" field of the infobox include "democratic socialism" in addition to "social democracy"? You will find arguments in favour and against in the above discussion thread.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Eagles (band)#RFC: Genres in the infobox[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eagles (band)#RFC: Genres in the infobox (initiated 5 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

*Should the infobox genre list all the genres also listed in the article, for which anyone could find a reference OR

  • Should the infobox genre parameter be reduced to the most general genre, in this case rock

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014–15 UEFA Champions League#RfC: Tiebreaker explanations below group tables[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014–15 UEFA Champions League#RfC: Tiebreaker explanations below group tables (initiated 17 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Proposed addendum to MOS:DABSYN[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Proposed addendum to MOS:DABSYN (initiated 15 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Edit War[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Edit War (initiated 24 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Proposal to elevate Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles to guideline status.[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Proposal to elevate Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles to guideline status. (initiated 22 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Proposing changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Proposing changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review (initiated 12 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 38#RFC re: Intro[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 38#RFC re: Intro (initiated 1 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Recent revert[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Recent revert (initiated 10 September 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Consensus#RfC, where the opening poster wrote:

The purpose of this RfC is to determine the current community consensus regarding a specific piece of wording: "winning an argument" versus "implementing a preferred version".

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 54#Proposal: Include mobile apps without assertion of importance in A7[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Proposal 2 re "Avoiding personal attacks"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Proposal 2 re "Avoiding personal attacks" (initiated 19 September 2014)? Please consider the RfC close at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 12#Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks" in your close. This discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain (initiated 8 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal to remove the topic ban of Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal to remove the topic ban of Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics (initiated 20 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request to lift a hastily placed block[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request to lift a hastily placed block (initiated 19 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-ban request for User:Der Statistiker in Paris articles.[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-ban request for User:Der Statistiker in Paris articles.? An editor wrote:

WARNING This case was closed by an admin and moved to the archives: [4], but ThePromander, who is engaged in a personal feud here, has resurrected this case by removing it from the archive and pasting it here. WP:HARASS? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye (initiated 20 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 11#Samantha Brennan[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 11#Samantha Brennan? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 October#Sex Tape (film)[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Electoral Commission[edit]

Would an uninvolved individual help close this RfC? If you do not feel that the consensus is clear, it is requested that you defer the closure to a bureaucrat. Thank you, Mike VTalk 00:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)