Wikipedia:Closure requests

Requests for closure

Premature close requests

Talk:Illinois_Family_Institute#RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead?

No new discussion in days, so please close it down. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow -- talk about premature requests for closure -- RfC under a week old, new post today -- and it needs to be shut down? Interesting concept of process. Collect (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this into the "Premature close requests" section. Feel free to move it out of this section either when 30 days have passed, when the discussion has become inactive, or when the consensus is in favor of a close. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC on conservative criticism

No new discussion in days, so please close it down. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

At the 2 days mark without a new comment - and the RfC is a week old?? Um -- read the RfC normal process. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this into the "Premature close requests" section. Feel free to move it out of this section either when 30 days have passed, when the discussion has become inactive, or when the consensus is in favor of a close. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Cruise#LGBT Project

Could someone see if this rather fruitless discussion can be closed? It was about whether the LGBT project could install a Wikiproject banner and was corrupted be the repeated accusation that someone(?) was trying to put Cruise into a LGBT category. I'm afraid it will continue to drag on. Insomesia (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be better not to close this prematurely, as there is a BLP issue at stake (i.e. whether a BLP concern overrides a WikiProject's ability to decide which articles lie within its scope). The discussion was opened on 27 August, and the RfC tag added (by me) on 29 August. [1] It should be allowed to stay open for at least a week, and longer if people are still commenting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this into the "Premature close requests" section. Feel free to move it out of this section either when 30 days have passed, when the discussion has become inactive, or when the consensus is in favor of a close. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you for looking. Insomesia (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Standard close requests

Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment#Israel

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment#Israel (see the subsection at Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment#RFC: the inclusion/exclusion of various incidents of discrimination and intolerance against Christians in Israel)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)#Pathfinder reference and Talk:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)#Kenzer reference

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)#Pathfinder reference and Talk:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)#Kenzer reference (initiated 25 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lamia (Pathfinder): Closed as no consensus. Kenzer: Closed as no consensus. And arguably, these aren't really RfC's anyway, since the discussion is debating technical points without seeming to be directed towards inclusion/non-inclusion in the article itself (or at least, they very quickly devolve into that). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is an RfC; the bot removed the tag after the RfC expired. I requested a brief summary of the arguments, but Swatjester (talk · contribs) has declined to provide a short summary of these closes.

More importantly, he also refused to explain his close at Talk:Family Research Council#Rfc on inclusion of Hate group in lead, a divided debate where only strength of argument could have supported his close. Repeated requests for an explanation about how he found one side to have stronger arguments were met by repeated excuses.

Requests for expanded rationales from other admins have always been cordially consented to: example from Jafeluv and example from Graeme Bartlett. These admins are willing to provide an extended close when asked. They have taken Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability seriously. Swatjester wrote: "How I choose to allocate my time on Wikipedia is my business, not yours. My RfC closures are entirely within policy. I'm finished with this conversation, thanks." The policy Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability states among other things (my bolding):

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought).

As a volunteer, Swatjester is free to use his time in whatever way he likes. But he may not breach policy by not being accountable for his closes.

I am unable to comment on Swatjester's talk page: He blanked the section because he didn't wish to be held accountable, so my only recourse is to post here: Swatjester, your intransigent behavior is unfitting for an RfC closer and a violation of Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability. I request that you not close further RfCs if you are unwilling to or incapable of explaining yourself when asked. To continue to be unaccountable as you have been here would be extremely disrespectful to other editors. Cunard (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You're mad because I declined to waste time explaining a no consensus RfC close that was exactly that: no consensus. Everyone said their bit, nobody agreed, and that was it for a month. I explained all this to you, so don't even pretend like I'm being unwilling to communicate here. There is literally nothing else of value to add to that discussion. The FRC close I also gave my reasoning: There was significantly more support than oppose opinions, and the strength of the oppose arguments was much weaker. Nobody asked for anything further, but for whatever reason you are insisting on bringing it back up. There was no controversy over the close. Nobody asked for a more detailed opinion. It is a heated talk page discussion on everything BUT the RFC close, actually. If you're going to cite policy, be correct about it: the RFC page does NOT require a detailed monologue about why it was closed a certain way, what I had for breakfast that morning, and more. Some admins CHOOSE to provide detailed summary in a controversial situation; this was neither a controversial situation, nor a situation where I chose to provide more detail. End of story, full stop. Furthermore Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability refers primarily to use of administrative actions, of which none were taken here. Second, I DID justify myself, multiple times in fact...you just didn't like the explanation. Just because you don't like my reasoning does not make me unaccountable. I realize that you are like the only person paying attention to this page, but you are exhibiting insane amounts of ownership to the point of making up allegations of policy breaches that do not exist to support your point, forum shopping because you didn't like that I told you to go away and quit piling work onto my talk page, and essentially causing drama where there was no need for any in the first place. So no, I will continue to close RFCs and do any other activity on Wikipedia as I see fit, and I will request that you stop trying to dictate what other editors can do, and leave well enough alone. And, I'll request that you apologize for misrepresenting my actions to support your argument, your claims of "intransigent behavior", and the like. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The forumshopping accusation is groundless. Had you not blanked the section on your talk page to stifle conversation, I would not have had to post on this neutral forum.

Regarding Talk:Family Research Council#Rfc on inclusion of Hate group in lead, the proposal had 60% support, which would have been a "no consensus" close if quality of arguments were not factored in. "The arguments of one side is stronger" is not a helpful explanation because it does not explain why that side is stronger.

Regarding "no consensus" closes: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC is an excellent example of a "no consensus" close for which the closing admin was praised by both the RfC's proposer and someone who opposed the proposal. It is certainly possible to summarize "no consensus" closes, which is more helpful to RfC participants than no summary. But if it's your judgment that a summary here would not be helpful, that is fine and I will let the matter rest.

Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability states (my bolding):

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

"Wikipedia-related conduct" includes RfC closes.

Feel free to continue to close RfCs if and only if you abide by the policy Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability and provide substantive explanations of your closes when asked. Cunard (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't dictate to other users "if and only if" they can do something or not. As I said, I will continue to close RFCs and do other activity on Wikipedia as I see fit. I have at all times been accountable and within policy on this. To say otherwise is at best a distortion of the facts, and at worst an outright lie: I DID provide a substantive explanation, I did so promptly and civilly, over multiple edits, and a look at my talk page will confirm that. But you insisted on not listening, not accepting what I had to say, but rather insisting that I follow some non-existent policy because in a couple of situations it was done that way. I didn't want to continue the argument after I had explained position multiple times, and your insistence was becoming extremely annoying. That was why I blanked the section on my talk page, and hence why I will not be continuing this conversation further either. Now seriously... leave me alone, stop making snide comments on the matter (he who makes conduct accusations ought to be clean himself), and do not continue to tell me what I may or may not edit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"I DID provide a substantive explanation" – I wrote above: "'The arguments of one side is stronger' is not a helpful explanation because it does not explain why that side is stronger." I maintain that you did not explain why one side was stronger in that divided debate. That is the basis for my statement that you did not provide a "substantive explanation".

I stand by my comment on Hobit's talk page. I wish every closer took the time and care in writing closing rationales as Hobit does and many other closing admins and non-admins on this board do (Armbrust (talk · contribs), Fifelfoo (talk · contribs), Jafeluv (talk · contribs), ThaddeusB (talk · contribs), TParis (talk · contribs), Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs), Drmies (talk · contribs), etc.).

Cunard (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I will say that some kind of explaination as to how the arguments were addressed is helpful. It just sucks to be on the losing end of one of these and not understand the close. Hobit (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Owing to my level of involvement in this discussion, even though I believe the discussion has run its course, I'd prefer if an uninvolved user archive the discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 3 when s/he deems it's appropriate. Cunard (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Shrimp#Request for comment

The discussion at Talk:Shrimp#Request for comment has been at times contentious, with users contesting closer John (talk · contribs)'s neutrality. Would a completely uninvolved admin assess the consensus at Talk:Shrimp#Request for comment, taking into account this comment by John (talk · contribs) and this comment by Dennis Brown (talk · contribs), two admins who were asked to review the discussion? Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Offender9000

Would an admin summarize the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Offender9000 (initiated 25 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Macclesfield Bank#China and Taiwan

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Macclesfield Bank#China and Taiwan (initiated 11 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:FoP-USonly#RFC: Does US FoP apply to foreign works?

Would an admin assess the consensus at Template talk:FoP-USonly#RFC: Does US FoP apply to foreign works? (initiated 12 July 2012)? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers#RfC: Should the article include funding college programs promoting free enterprise?

Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers#RfC: Should the article include funding college programs promoting free enterprise? (initiated 13 July 2012)? The last comment was on 4 August 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Site xuarez.comoj.com and other requests

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist has a severe backlog; the oldest entries date from January. Would an admin (or admins) review:

After reviewing an entry, please post a comment on the requester's talk page because the requester may no longer be watching the page after such a lengthy period of time. MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist/Indicators may be useful. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:RT (TV network)#RFC: Is RT a reliable source as per WP:RS?

Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:RT (TV network)#RFC: Is RT a reliable source as per WP:RS? (initiated 17 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#RfC on spelling and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#Other options

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#RfC on spelling (initiated 18 July 2012) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)#Other options? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#RFC: shall changes in beginning of sentence case be allowed in quotations?

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#RFC: shall changes in beginning of sentence case be allowed in quotations? (initiated 24 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• This needs to run another few days or so, imo. I'll consider closing after it's been open for 30 days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I requested an early closure only because the discussion was archived by MiszaBot II (talk · contribs) owing to inactivity. Should it be unarchived for further discussion until 23 August 2012? Cunard (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Good point. Yes, I would recommend unarchiving so that it can have 30 days. If there were greater participation, I would have no problem closing it early, but it's easy to question the legitimacy of an RfC that had low participation and was closed early. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Discussion unarchived to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: shall changes in beginning of sentence case be allowed in quotations?. The RfC can be closed in about two days. Cunard (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion has now been archived again to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#RFC: shall changes in beginning of sentence case be allowed in quotations?. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of vegans#RfC: Proposals for table format

Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:List of vegans#RfC: Proposals for table format (initiated 20 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Political activities of the Koch family#RfC: Should the article include funding college programs promoting free enterprise?

Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Political activities of the Koch family#RfC: Should the article include funding college programs promoting free enterprise? (initiated 13 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Plasma cosmology#Requests for comment 2

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Plasma cosmology#Requests for comment 2 (permanent link because there are two sections titled "Requests for comment" on the page: link) (initiated 14 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thmc1

Would an uninvolved admin provide a third opinion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thmc1 to break the stalemate between the contrary findings/conclusions of DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) and Kudpung (talk · contribs). Kudpung requested that an uninvolved admin close the SPI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#Univolved admin, but his request was archived without a response. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee#Time to shutter formal mediation?

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee#Time to shutter formal mediation? (initiated 21 July 2012 and listed at Template:Centralized discussion)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RFC: Names with diacritics and other non-ASCII letters: Should we permit, require, or prohibit ASCIIfied versions?

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RFC: Names with diacritics and other non-ASCII letters: Should we permit, require, or prohibit ASCIIfied versions? (initiated 23 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#BLP edit warring on British Jews

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#BLP edit warring on British Jews, particularly the section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#Proposal: User:Bus stop topic-banned from Jewish categorisation, broadly construed. After closing the discussion, consider moving it back to WP:ANI so the community is aware of the decision. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Geo Swan and AfDs

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Geo Swan and AfDs? There are three proposals there: (i) Proposal to slow down a bit at AfD, (ii) Proposal to topic ban Geo Swan, and (iii) Proposal to refer to Arbcom. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence#Request for comment 4

Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence#Request for comment 4 (initiated 25 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War#Request for Comment II

Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War#Request for Comment II (initiated 25 July 2012)? Cunard (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of African-American firsts#Request for Comment: Pro wrestling

Participants have agreed to request an admin to assess the comments and to close with a decision. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lilith Sternin#Changing scope of this article again without merging?

I was going to withdraw, but I don't know if I've added the subject's more relevant relationships. To be honest, I don't find general value about this subject very much. --George Ho (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC: Hard/soft blocks of promotional usernames

Would an admin be so kind as to summarize the policy-based consensus at this RfC, and add/not add the proposed text that was discussed? Comments have stopped for awhile now (except for one short one), despite notices at the Village Pump, etc. The discussion has been open for three weeks. I advise taking a look at this thread while you're there, which kind of grew into the current RfC. Much appreciated. NTox · talk 04:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Use of talk page while blocked

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Use of talk page while blocked (initiated 1 July 2012) by summarizing the principles in the discussion and declaring whether there is consensus for any additions or changes to the wording of the policy. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état#Was Mosaddegh democratically elected, or appointed prime minister?

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état#Was Mosaddegh democratically elected, or appointed prime minister? (initiated 26 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sister Roma#Is an image of Sister Roma with Hunky Jesus appropriate or not?

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sister Roma#Is an image of Sister Roma with Hunky Jesus appropriate or not? (initiated 28 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph Grimaldi#Overhaul and extension proposal

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Joseph Grimaldi#Overhaul and extension proposal (initiated 9 August 2012)? The RfC tag was removed after there was an strong consensus to implement the change. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Gulf War#Article needs more attention to the Iraqi side, and photographs of the initial Iraqi invasion in August 1990 and occupation

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Gulf War#Article needs more attention to the Iraqi side, and photographs of the initial Iraqi invasion in August 1990 and occupation (initiated 1 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River#Beginning of the Hudson for List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River#Beginning of the Hudson for List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River (initiated 1 August 2012). The question posed is: "Should the list of fixed crossings of the Hudson River state that its source is Lake Tear of the Clouds, or that its beginning is at Henderson Lake?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Information technology#RFC

Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Information technology#RFC (initiated 17 August 2012)? The RfC tag was removed after substantial participation. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Proposal: Character notability guidelines

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Proposal: Character notability guidelines (initiated 3 August 2012)? There is a request to close the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Close this RfC?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Notability of the small, cookie-cutter temples

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Notability of the small, cookie-cutter temples (initiated 27 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Bride burning#Request for Comment

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bride burning#Request for Comment (initiated 3 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Georgia State University#Primary logo

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Georgia State University#Primary logo (see Talk:Georgia State University#RFC Responses, initiated 27 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan#Request for Comment

Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan#Request for Comment (initiated 30 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Christian terrorism#RFC on Nagaland and Assam claims

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Christian terrorism#RFC on Nagaland and Assam claims (initiated 30 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ramadan#Should fasting criteria be in the lede?

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ramadan#Should fasting criteria be in the lede? (initiated 27 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Focus on the Family#They sold Love Won Out

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Focus on the Family#They sold Love Won Out (initiated 31 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Glossaries

Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Glossaries (initiated 28 July 2012)? The question posed is: "If Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, nor an indiscriminate collection of information, is a glossary an acceptable form of stand-alone list?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis 1:3

Can I request that somebody close the merge discussion at Talk:Genesis 1:3. This discussion was reopened by Dougweller on procedural grounds. Reasons for closing:

• more than a week has elapsed since the proposal
• all four responses to the merge proposal opposed it, nobody supported it, so WP:SNOW seems to apply (the proposal was made when the article was a short stub, it was since significantly expanded)
• discussion has ceased, the last response to the proposal was on 26 August (although there has been some debate on procedural aspects of the proposal, from editors who themselves chose neither to oppose or support the proposal).

Thanks. -- 202.124.75.77 (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to note that I didn't re-open this. My opinion was sought concerning attempts to close this (one which I believe was before 7 days had passed) and I simply noted that we have a procedure for closure and that I didn't think that in this case involved parties should be closing it while others are objecting to the closure. I do note that there are no 4 support votes and no opposes and if I had not been involved by the post to my talk page I would might have considered closing it myself. However, there is no reason to rush to closure here and I see no harm in leaving the discussion open for a few days more. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the discussion was closed after 5 days on 27 August 2012‎ by User:Neelix, who forgot to "blue-box" the talk thread with "Discussion" tags. I added those tags later that day, but they were later removed, with what I understood to be endorsement by User:Dougweller. At present, the thread is more or less in the state it was in when User:Neelix closed the discussion. Over to you guys. -- 202.124.75.77 (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Also note that when Dougweller says "no support votes and no opposes," I think he means "no support votes and 4 opposes." -- 202.124.75.156 (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Attempts to close this merge was too swift. Many involved editors were distracted with the Talk:Genesis 1:5 debate which directly involved the merging of Talk:Genesis 1:3. Since the results for Genesis 1:5 was "no consensus", Genesis 1:3 is still open to talk about a merge. If Genesis 1:5 was marked as "keep"... then by default, Genesis 1:3 could not be merged. Now, the opposers of the merge are quickly trying to close the Talk:Genesis 1:3 merge debate to tie up loose ends. With the close tags on it, no one is going to modify it. Only a few of us bold editors are challenging it to ensure a fairness! Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 13:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, when Jasonasosa mentions Talk:Genesis 1:5, I think he means WP:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5. I also note that, although Jasonasosa has agitated to reopen the merge discussion, he did not contact the admin who closed it, and himself apparently neither supports nor opposes the merge. -- 202.124.73.71 (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5 is correct.   — Jasonasosa 14:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Correction: Jasonasosa has just added a "support" vote. -- 202.124.73.71 (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The IP is right in saying that I meant 4 support votes. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Correction, there are 4 opposes, and now 2 support votes. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 13:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well colour me stupid, but I'm counting 4 "opposes" and 1 recent "support." -- 202.124.73.71 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Which totals 2 support votes.  — Jasonasosa 14:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You're the only editor that's supported the proposal. -- 202.124.73.71 (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Fayenatic london (talk · contribs) opened the merge, and thus has to be counted, totaling 2 in support. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 17:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And let me just repeat again what User:Dougweller and User:Jasonasosa are glossing over: this merge discussion was properly closed by an admin, namely User:Neelix (except for the missing "Discussion" tags). Jasonasosa attempted to revert the admin here, here, and here. When did that suddenly become acceptable? -- 202.124.73.9 (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me but Neelix (talk · contribs) was directly involved in the merge dispute at WP:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5. Thus, his admin status does not count as he is biased to the results. Therefore, I was able to undo the admin on all three pages. The consensus is... "No consensus". Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 06:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That bizarre belief is the nub of the issue. Nobody has the right to revert an official admin decision like that, only the right to make a complaint about it. And the "no consensus" at WP:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5 has nothing to do with the strong "don't merge" consensus at Talk:Genesis 1:3#Merger. It seems to me that User:Neelix's closure stands unless anybody here over-rules it. -- 202.124.74.222 (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

First, he didn't close the discussion, he removed merge tags from the article itself which is why I saw no closure of the discussion, it wasn't closed properly.

Secondly, Admins don't have any special power to close a talk page discussion. No consensus however means that the status quo remains. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it wasn't closed properly. But surely it needs to be either closed properly (with 4 editors opposing User:Fayenatic london's proposal and one editor supporting it) or it should be reopened properly (on the remote chance of more input). At present the page is neither fish nor fowl. -- 202.124.73.65 (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947#Request for Comment

This discussion was closed by a non-admin editor. Need an admin to review it. Thanks --SMS ^Talk 15:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll endorse Armburst's closure. There is rough consensus to remove the template although I understand why you would ask for a second opinion. At it's worst, the same handful of people are in each of these types of India-Pakistan RFCs and it's not helpful when it is just them. Peter S Strempel's comment would've made an excellent close rationale.--v/r - TP 19:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Titles of Indian film articles

This discussion occurred in April of this year. No admin closed the discussion, so it could not yet be officially implemented. Thanks. Ωphois 02:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 18:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 11#Template:Cite web.2Fsmart

I would rather not close this one, since I closed a related one and there was some backlash from Wikid77. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 19:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States#Ashland and Salem merger requests

Discussion has ceased since mid-March, 2012. Requesting closure from an uninvolved editor. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States#Texas State merger request

Discussion has ceased since early-March, 2012. Requesting closure from an uninvolved editor. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)