Wikipedia:Closure requests

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.

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 1 May 2024); 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.

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.

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.

Requests for closure

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Backlog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working § Discussions awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, Wikipedia:Files for deletion § Old discussions, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files § Holding cell, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

Talk:Right-wing socialism#RfC: Split article and form disambiguation page

There is an RfC where the template has expired. I believe the concensus is clear and tried to close, but was reverted on the grounds that I am not an administrator. Regards. Op47 (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to closer: Please consider the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing socialism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing socialism (2nd nomination) in your close. One of the RfC participants wrote that "those who opined at the AfD should really have been notified of this", so the arguments made at the AfD are likely relevant to this discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Undone -- the article deletion requires a new AfD, not a simple RfC on the page which was not widely participated in. Backdoor deletions with low participation are "not done". BTW, 4 to 2 is rarely called a "clear consensus" by anyone I know. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a thread at ANI that is discussing this issue.[1]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• The RfC discussion has ended, but still needs a formal closure. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, I believe the outcome of the ANI thread was to notify participants of the prior AfD and allow them time to comment. There have been no comments or !votes for one month and the RfC as a whole has been open for 2 months. I'd say it's time someone closed it (yet again--they say three's a charm).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:British Isles#RfC: Is the disputed but referenced, "most favoured", alternative relevant?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:British Isles#RfC: Is the disputed but referenced, "most favoured", alternative relevant? (initiated 16 February 2014)? There are several proposals in that section including the subsection Talk:British Isles#Poll regarding 'Britain and Ireland' in the introduction. Please see also the discussion about closure at Talk:British Isles#Closure. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cārvāka#RfC: Was Cārvāka a Hindu Nastika system?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cārvāka#RfC: Was Cārvāka a Hindu Nastika system? (initiated 23 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#RFC to resolve conflict between MOS:TM, MOS:CT WP:TITLETM WP:RS WP:COMMONNAME

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#RFC to resolve conflict between MOS:TM, MOS:CT WP:TITLETM WP:RS WP:COMMONNAME (initiated 7 February 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#RFC_on_Soviet_rapes

This RFC has been fruitless and won't help to solve the dispute there. It's time to close this. One of the Users is willing to try other dispute resolution after this ends. It would just be better to move the process along.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So if an univolved editor wouldn't mind please close this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to add that the RfC was incorrectly worded, so it can be closed as invalid. -YMB29 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Berlin#RFC on Soviet rapes (initiated 7 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

1. Is inline attribution needed for the sentence "During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder" ?
2. Should the article include the sentence "These claims are criticized by Russian historians like Oleg Rzheshevsky, who stated that such descriptions of the Red Army are similar to the images instilled by Nazi propaganda" ?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is important to know that the way the RfC was worded was biased and misleading. The wording does not accurately represent the dispute on the talk page. The user who hastily created the RfC quickly commented in it himself without understanding the dispute.

Then there was a third question added later, after some users already commented.

Also, the first question did not make it clear that the issue was inline attribution, and many users thought it was inline citation.

Can someone just close the RfC as invalid. I hope to resolve the dispute using dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This actually ended on its own on April 6. It didn't violate any policy as YMB is trying to assert.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why did you think I was talking about you? I was talking about Diannaa, the user who started the RfC. -YMB29 (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think you were talking to me. I made no indication to make you think that. This area is for closing RFCs and other things. Not invalidating them. Pushing pov does nothing here. Since the RFC is over you have nothing complain about.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Who is "pushing POV" here? I don't understand what you are talking about. -YMB29 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, you yourself said that it is "highly biased and doesn't represent the dispute"[2]. -YMB29 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead

Closure is needed on this matter; the WP:RfC expired on March 30 and a closure is needed to indicate what the WP:Consensus is (whether there is or is not one) for that WP:RfC. There has been one recent comment since the WP:RfC expired and the fact that the editor noticed the WP:RfC appears to have been due to a different discussion currently going on there; the WP:RfC is otherwise stagnant. Flyer22 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 33#Judith Curry 4

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 33#Judith Curry 4 (initiated 28 February 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Judith Curry was removed and I added again. The previous talk on this was Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_31#Judith_Curry_3 and I do not believe there was a consensus for removal. Has that changed or was I wrong or do we need an RfC?

A close is necessary because this has been discussed repeatedly:

1. Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 29#Judith Curry (initiated 22 October 2012)
2. Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 31#Judith Curry 2 (initiated 9 January 2014)
3. Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 31#Judith Curry 3 (initiated 21 January 2014)
4. Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 33#Judith Curry 4 (initiated 28 February 2014)

Here are several suggestions:

1. Please consider the previous discussions in your close.
2. Please link to the previous discussions in your close so they are all aggregated in one place on the RfC that will determine whether Judith Curry should be kept or removed from the article..
3. Please consider either announcing your closure on the talk page or unarchiving Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 33#Judith Curry 4 and then closing it.

The list currently contains Judith Curry. If your conclusion is no consensus (having not read the discussions, I do not know), please consider whether BLP (specifically Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content) results in the material being omitted by default in the absence of a clear consensus to include it.

If BLP does not cause the material to be omitted by default, then please consider whether the status quo is to keep or omit the entry. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP does indeed default to not include this person, and the evidence for inclusion is distinctly WP:ORish. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the case here, though I think I'd probably agree with Guy if I did. But I opened a new section at the talk page, because I think it would be unusual to close an archived discussion without mention on the page. One way or another, I agree that it's time to close this matter. Homunq (࿓) 02:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John_Schlossberg#RfC_on_ethnicity_categories

Request closure help. Thank you. -- GreenC 15:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gun control#RfC: Remove Nazi gun_control argument?

The matter under discussion is contentious. The RfC has been open one week, discussion has slowed, and the consensus seems clear, but I would like an uninvolved editor to close it. Lightbreather (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor also assess the consensus at the same talk page; see Talk:Gun control/Archive 15#Authoritarianism and gun control RFC (initiated 16 December 2013)?

Previous close request: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 9#Talk:Gun control#Authoritarianism and gun control RFC

Nyttend (talk · contribs) procedurally closed the discussion since a case was open at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. See Nyttend's post at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Procedural note. The case was closed 30 April 2014.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut#Template_shortcuts

Please disposition Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut#Template_shortcuts, which has remained unchanged for over one week. I can not close due to WP:INVOLVED. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't, this isn't a high-pressure issue that requires being "dispositioned" (can we avoid the business jargon, too?). — Scott • talk 00:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox film#RfC:Should an "Official website" parameter be enabled in the Infobox film template?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox film#RfC:Should an "Official website" parameter be enabled in the Infobox film template? (initiated 8 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Simon Collins#Removal of new content

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Simon Collins#Removal of new content (initiated 15 January 2014; see Talk:Simon Collins#Request For Comment, which was initiated 15 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Recently, the article was expanded with an assortment of new information. There is a debate regarding which of it should stay and which of it should not be included. If someone aside from those already involved could evaluate and provide a neutral opinion, that would be greatly appreciated.

The content in question can be found in the following version of the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Collins&oldid=590649123

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of Bohemian Club members#Philips as a source

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Bohemian Club members#Philips as a source (initiated 20 March 2014)? See Talk:List of Bohemian Club members#Discussion:, where the question was: "Ought this list include Mark Twain?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Michaëlle Jean#Formatting

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michaëlle Jean#Formatting (initiated 15 April 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Michaëlle Jean#RfC: Should the lists in the infobox use the Plainlist template?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Scarlett Johansson#Meta RFC on dispute tag

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Scarlett Johansson#Meta RFC on dispute tag (initiated 7 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Post-nominals#RfC: Size of post-nominals in this template

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Post-nominals#RfC: Size of post-nominals in this template (initiated 26 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#RfC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#RfC (initiated 2 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the lead include a summary of the reliably sourced content in the article that is not related to her crime(s)?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries by average wage#RfC: Should the "List of countries by average wage" page include OECD, ILO, and official national statistics?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of countries by average wage#RfC: Should the "List of countries by average wage" page include OECD, ILO, and official national statistics? (initiated 20 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Homunq (࿓) 12:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism#RFC: Does the use of the Islamophobia template in this article violate wikipedias policy on NPOV?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism#RFC: Does the use of the Islamophobia template in this article violate wikipedias policy on NPOV? (initiated 8 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula#RfC for merge

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula#RfC for merge (initiated 10 March 2014)? The question posed was: "Should this article be redirected to Genetic history of Europe?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Homunq (࿓) 12:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2013 in film#Length

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2013 in film#Length (initiated 16 January 2014)? See the subsection Talk:2013 in film#RfC (initiated 8 March 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that WP:FILMYEAR has been approved, I believe this matter to be closed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Shield#Consensus on this page's related articles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Shield#Consensus on this page's related articles (initiated 26 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

This page has a lot of related articles which are composed solely of in-universe material with no real-world significance or notability. As Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I'd like to redirect the following articles to the article page:

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of Ukrainian elections#Split

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Ukrainian elections#Split (initiated 8 March 2014)? The opening poster has been attempting to get the issue resolved by restoring the expired RfC tag to get independent input. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Euromaidan#Proposal to merge and reorganize material into Euromaiden article and perhaps an article on the Ouster of Victor Yanukovych

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Euromaidan#Proposal to merge and reorganize material into Euromaiden article and perhaps an article on the Ouster of Victor Yanukovych (initiated 17 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:United States#Health by political preference

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States#Health by political preference (initiated 1 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Moral responsibility#RfC: Subsection on legal aspects of 'moral responsibility'

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Moral responsibility#RfC: Subsection on legal aspects of 'moral responsibility' (initiated 23 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RfC: Subject preference

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RfC: Subject preference (initiated 26 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

In discussions related to the titling or stylizing of names of people, especially for BLPs, the subject's preference often comes up. See, for example, the current discussion at Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)#Requested move 2. The principle has been applied previously to articles such as danah boyd and k.d. lang, and in the case of lowercase names, this is already MOS-supported; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Items that require initial lower case. However, there doesn't seem to be general language recommending weight be given to a subject's preference in such determinations. I believe limited language to this effect could be beneficial in future discussions, and would follow the spirit of WP:BLP (this would apply to all biographies, though it might be of more interest for BLPs). Offhand, I know libraries give a great deal of weight to subject preference in authority work. I'm not sure what other fields deal with such cases. Journalism, perhaps? The major caveat worth noting in any language inserted into NCP is that the subject's preference needs to be supported by other usage as well. So any assertions that a particular person prefers a particular form of name need to be supported, rather than accepted at face value. The language I have in mind would resemble that at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification, though whether it would be better to say subject preference should be "considered" or "preferred" is something that I'm willing to leave to discussion.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is still ongoing and contentious. The main proponent's "FAQ" summary of the discussion is seriously lopsided and incorrect on several points, including how this would affect WP policy more broadly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Tq#RfC: Change the TQ template font colour

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Tq#RfC: Change the TQ template font colour (initiated 16 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Piero Scaruffi as a reliable and published source

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Piero Scaruffi as a reliable and published source (initiated 28 April 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Non-free images in collaborations with other organizations

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Non-free images in collaborations with other organizations (initiated 9 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

I propose we add the follow text to the exemptions section: "Non-free images may be used on non-article space page when there is explicit permission via OTRS from the copyright holder allowing this use and the copyright holder is involved in a collaborative effort with Wikipedians to improve Wikipedia"

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Does Change = Revert?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Does Change = Revert? (initiated 10 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Titles within titles: "starring" and "presents"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Titles within titles: "starring" and "presents" (initiated 14 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Category talk:Stubs#Proposal: Stub categories should be hidden

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Stubs#Proposal: Stub categories should be hidden (initiated 23 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: Should the reference to Wikinfo be replaced with a reference to Wikiversity?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: Should the reference to Wikinfo be replaced with a reference to Wikiversity? (initiated 24 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page/Archive 179#Proposal to implement new framework for main page

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Main Page/Archive 179#Proposal to implement new framework for main page (initiated 2 April 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:UKForex#Turning page into redirect

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:UKForex#Turning page into redirect (initiated 25 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 April

Would an admin (or admins) assess the consensus at:

• Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 April#List of black Academy Award winners and nominees
• Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 April#Social network
• Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 April#Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GDAP Entertainment

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GDAP Entertainment (initiated 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chris seidl

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chris seidl (initiated 25 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Siconize/Laravel (framework)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Siconize/Laravel (framework) (initiated 24 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done by MER-C (talk · contribs). TLSuda (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GameGuy95

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GameGuy95 (initiated 23 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done by MER-C (talk · contribs). TLSuda (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GameGuy95/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (daytime version)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GameGuy95/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (daytime version) (initiated 23 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done by MER-C (talk · contribs). TLSuda (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alfonzo Green

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alfonzo Green (initiated 22 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SaucyJimmy

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SaucyJimmy (initiated 22 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Young editor userboxes

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Young editor userboxes (initiated 21 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sparky 384/Sparky 384

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sparky 384/Sparky 384 (initiated 20 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zach464

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zach464 (initiated 20 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Falador Swag

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Falador Swag (initiated 20 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done by MER-C (talk · contribs). TLSuda (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jalen17/sandbox

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jalen17/sandbox (initiated 20 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done by MER-C (talk · contribs). TLSuda (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wanted! History

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wanted! History (initiated 20 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done by JohnCD (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NTnx

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NTnx (initiated 20 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/Pornographic actresses

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/Pornographic actresses (initiated 18 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omar Abubakar

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omar Abubakar (initiated 16 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Homunq (࿓) 12:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC) (ps. I'd appreciate attention to the Voting system RfC below.)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra-Acoustic harassment

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra-Acoustic harassment (initiated 14 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done by  JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC) (recorded here by Homunq (࿓) 12:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghost (TV Series)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghost (TV Series) (initiated 6 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cskumaar/Maruthuvar community

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cskumaar/Maruthuvar community (initiated 31 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club, Excel

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club, Excel (initiated 13 March 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Yugoslav Front#Requested move

This discussion has been extended once before, it's at the very bottom of RM backlog, and it's high time someone closes it. The raw tally now is, AFAICT:

• Yugoslavia in World War II
  • 11 support
  • 8 oppose
  • several alternative suggestions (split, ...)
• Yugoslav theatre of World War II
  • 5 support
  • 6 oppose
• National Liberation War
  • 1 support
  • 10 oppose
  • several comments (disambiguate, ...)
• World War II in Yugoslavia
  • 12 support
  • 4 oppose
• Military history of Yugoslavia during World War II
  • 1 support
  • 4 oppose
• Resistance in Yugoslavia
  • 2 support
  • 4 oppose

This really isn't very difficult at this point, one simply has to be uninvolved to close it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Cheers, Homunq (࿓) 01:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

PS. I was not able to do the actual move, however; could somebody do that for me? Also, I'd appreciate attention to the Voting system RfC below. Thanks, Homunq (࿓) 01:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Voting_system#RFC_-_favorite_betrayal.3F

Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Voting_system#RFC_-_favorite_betrayal.3F, initiated 19 april 2014? Or, if this request is premature, please suggest when it would be appropriate? Homunq (࿓) 18:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of Bohemian Club members#Phillips as a source

Was started as a topic on 20 March, and an RfC on inclusion of Mark Twain as an "honorary member" in the list was formally started on 21 March.

Closure would be quite appreciated, as the disputants seem to be firm stick-holders. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

In the reality-based world, the RfC in question was started on the 29th of April. It's an "eensy" bit odd to give such a misleading impression regarding how long the RfC has been running -- not least for the person who started the RfC to do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Before accusing anyone of lying, I gently suggest you look at the talk page history: [3] has the Legobot addition of that RfC. On 21 March, as I stated. Sheesh - it would be nice if you actually got this right when I specified the actual date of that RfC. Collect (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This is already listed on the RFCs to close list (see above). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Assault weapons legislation#RfC: Is "Assault weapons ban" an appropriate title for this article?

I started the RfC before realizing that Requested moves is a better process in this situation. Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)