Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:56, 15 November 2014 editNcmvocalist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,127 editsm →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sergey Kryukov (2nd nomination): fix← Previous edit Revision as of 12:10, 15 November 2014 edit undoBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,332 edits →Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Authority to topic ban?: Ncmvocalist has it rightNext edit →
Line 276: Line 276:
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 November 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 November 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
:No, a community consensus was not sought; general input was simply sought and given for a single action by {{u|Bishonen}} at the time. It was {{close}} or archived sometime back, and there is no need to raise that one again. ] (]) 10:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC) :No, a community consensus was not sought; general input was simply sought and given for a single action by {{u|Bishonen}} at the time. It was {{close}} or archived sometime back, and there is no need to raise that one again. ] (]) 10:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
::] is exactly right, that was it. I wasn't looking to establish some instruction creep for ] (which would be better done at ]), but merely to seek advice in a specific case, and I got it. , I thanked people for their input and noted that I had decided what to do and implemented it. My note was probably not as prominent as it should have been, and the way the next person threaded theirs made mine almost invisible. And indeed people went on posting, with no-longer-needed further advice. In hindsight, I should have closed it instead of just saying "OK, all done, going to bed now", but, well, I was sleepy. There's no need to assess consensus. ] | ] 12:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC).


===]=== ===]===

Revision as of 12:10, 15 November 2014

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Archiving icon
    Archives
    Index
    Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
    Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
    Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
    Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
    Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
    Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
    Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
    Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
    Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
    Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
    Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
    Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
    Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39

    This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Shortcuts

    The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. 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 11 December 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Misplaced Pages: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.

    Requests for closure

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

    Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation

    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 19:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 113#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates?. Armbrust 06:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles/Archive 47#Date ranges as titles and Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles/Archive 48#Proposal/question: Should we disambiguate year-range work titles?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles/Archive 47#Date ranges as titles (initiated 1 July 2014) and the RfC at Misplaced Pages 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)

     Done unarchived and closed as disambiguate Gaijin42 (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page layout#AFD history

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

    Misplaced Pages:Volunteer Response Team/Userright RfC

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages: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)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Distinguishing between New Pages Patrol reviews and AfC reviews

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 114#Distinguishing between New Pages Patrol reviews and AfC reviews. Armbrust 22:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Colourisation of images

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

    There was discussion, but, partly because the RFC did not request !votes, there is no real conclusion. Either the RFC can be closed without consensus, or another closer can try to tease consensus out of it, or a new RFC can be posted that requests !votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    Votes are not required for an RfC to reach a conclusion. Would another closer try to find a consensus from this discussion, even if it is "no consensus"? Cunard (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 4

    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)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 8

    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)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 9#Category:Writers by ethnic or national descent

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages: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)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#AfD/IAR review

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

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

    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)
    Pining this one. --Tóraí (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Sam Brownback#Significant enough for lead?

    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:Richard O'Dwyer#RFC -- TVShack.net definition

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

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

    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

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

    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)

    I would recommend against accelerating the closure of either RFC. Although there does appear to be snow consensus, the RFCs are contentious due primarily to one editor. I would suggest avoiding any possibility of a challenge to the closure. Also, because of the contentious nature of the RFCs, I would suggest an administrative close when each of the RFCs is ready for closure. (By the way, I think that I am with the majority on both RFCs. I just don't want a close to go into closure review, and would prefer to wait.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    The RfC has become stale after a consensus edit of four editors was posted last month in the article (Users: Steel pillow, DavidEpstein, Ruuud, FelixRosch). FelixRosch (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
    This response from FelixRosch shows why we need an authoritative closure for these RFCs, so I support the suggestion from Robert McClenon that the RFCs should run their course and that an administrative closure is appropriate in this case. The first has now run its full time, the second still has a while to go. --Mirokado (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

    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)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Proposed addendum to MOS:DABSYN

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

    Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 38#RFC re: Intro

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

    Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 11#Samantha Brennan

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

    Talk:Israel#Question 3: should anything be included about the question around Israel's democracy status

    I was invited to this RfC via the comment request service, and later noticed that it was never closed despite being marked as stale by Legobot, so it's probably time now. Since I commented, I shouldn't close it myself. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 17:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

    There were three parts to this RFC, all of which have expired and had their templates pulled by the bot, so that all three need closure. Will an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this three-part RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:2014 Formula One season#RFC: FP1 drivers

    Could an uninvolved an experienced administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Formula One season#RFC: FP1 drivers? Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Vivekananda#Requested move

    6 support including the nominator, more than 24 hours have been passed, no oppose. Misplaced Pages:SNOW Bladesmulti (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

     Not done I don't see the harm in waiting seven days, plus an opposer has appeared. Number 57 11:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    Seven days have now passed. Cunard (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
     Done by Philg88. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Arab Winter

    The following sections should have reached consensus: "Current title stable?" and "Merge to Arab spring". Currently, the article is nominated for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

     Not done - Recommend waiting until AFD is closed. The two questions largely overlap with the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    Link to AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arab Winter.

    Link to discussions: Talk:Arab Winter#Current title stable? and Talk:Arab Winter#Merge to Arab spring. Cunard (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Robert McClenon, the AFD is closed as "Kept". --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
     Done both. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Merger proposal

    Looking for an experienced editor or admin to assess consensus and close merge discussion.VictoriaGrayson 04:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

    The consensus is for Merge, which will have to be done by an administrator who can merge the histories. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    An admin may be needed for the actual merge, but an admin is not necessary to assess consensus and close the discussion.VictoriaGrayson 23:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Retartist/hall of infamy

    I want to be able to move the page Retartist (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Dado Pršo#RfC: include the presumed birth name in the article lead section or not?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dado Pršo#RfC: include the presumed birth name in the article lead section or not? (initiated 27 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Derek McCulloch#RfC

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Derek McCulloch#RfC (initiated 29 September 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Ought the rumours about the person be included in this biography? Two years ago, an RfC found the inclusion of the allegations to be acceptable." Please consider Talk:Derek McCulloch#RfC: Should the article refer to the recent allegations? (initiated 4 September 2012) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Tom Ridge#RfC

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tom Ridge#RfC (initiated 29 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Steve Daines#RfC

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Steve Daines#RfC (initiated 19 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

    Is Steve Daines a "Tea Party activist" for purposes of categorization? He was endorsed by a Tea Party group, but shows no other connection to the movement.

    WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:List of deprogrammers#RFC: The inclusion of names, the validity of references, and BLP

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of deprogrammers#RFC: The inclusion of names, the validity of references, and BLP (initiated 4 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#RFC: Military intervention against ISIS 2014 in Iraq and Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Scope of Article

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#RFC: Military intervention against ISIS 2014 in Iraq (initiated 5 October 2014) and Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Scope of Article (initiated 11 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Julian calendar#RFC: Is the Julian a reform of Egyptian calendar?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian calendar#RFC: Is the Julian a reform of Egyptian calendar? (initiated 2 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Is the Julian calendar a reform of the Egyptian calendar, as asserted in these edits by User:Rarevogel, rather than a reform of the Roman calendar?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#RfC Syrian Inclusion and Talk:2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Ordering of Factions in Infobox

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#RfC Syrian Inclusion (initiated 5 October 2014) and the RfC at Talk:2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Ordering of Factions in Infobox (initiated 7 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Request for comment II and Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#RfC: UNHRC vote in the lead

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Request for comment II (initiated 6 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the following content be added to this article?"

    Would an experienced editor also assess the consensus at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#RfC: UNHRC vote in the lead (initiated 6 October 2014)?

    Please consider the previous RfC close at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Request for comment in your closes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#Objection to revert

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#Objection to revert (initiated 1 October 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#Request for comments, where the opening poster wrote: "Does the "Health risks" section of 3 October or 4 October best represent the sources above?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#RfC: Are particular sentences in this article synthesis?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at:

    1. Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#RfC: Are particular sentences in this article synthesis? (initiated 14 September 2014)
    2. Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#RfC: Extraneous quote (initiated 21 September 2014)
    3. Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#RfC: Overemphasis of negative material (initiated 25 September 2014)

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Game of Thrones (season 5)#RfC: Is WatchersOnTheWall.com a suitable source for this content?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Game of Thrones (season 5)#RfC: Is WatchersOnTheWall.com a suitable source for this content? (initiated 26 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Garbage (album)#RfC: genre infobox dispute; Power pop & electronic rock

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Garbage (album)#RfC: genre infobox dispute; Power pop & electronic rock (initiated 2 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:The Game (Queen album)#RfC: Genres listed in this article's infobox

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Game (Queen album)#RfC: Genres listed in this article's infobox (initiated 2 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement#Request for comment on reception section

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement#Request for comment on reception section (initiated 7 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Efforts to impeach Barack Obama#RfC: Should the last 3 paragraphs in the public debate section be separated into a different section?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Efforts to impeach Barack Obama#RfC: Should the last 3 paragraphs in the public debate section be separated into a different section? (initiated 25 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Ed Miliband#Should Miliband's notable father be mentioned in the lead, as his notable brother is?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ed Miliband#Should Miliband's notable father be mentioned in the lead, as his notable brother is? (initiated 27 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC (initiated 1 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

    Should the statement "On Social Security, which Ernst wants to privatize Ernst said said, "Within 20 years, the system will be broke," which isn't even close to resembling reality." be reflected in this BLP?

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC on a "bold edit"

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC on a "bold edit" (initiated 1 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

    Is this edit proper? An article in Yahoo News reported that at a January 2014 GOP forum in Montgomery County, Iowa, Ernst warned that Agenda 21, the U.N.'s 1992 voluntary action plan for sustainable development, could force Iowa farmers off their land, dictate what cities Iowans must live in, and control how Iowa citizens travel from place to place, stating that “The United Nations has imposed this upon us, and as a U.S. senator, I would say, ‘No more. No more Agenda 21.’ Community planning — to the effect that it is implementing eminent domain and taking away property rights away from individuals" <ref>{{cite web|last1=Shiner|first1=Meredith|title=Will Joni Ernst’s flirtations with the political fringe haunt her in November?|url=http://news.yahoo.com/will-joni-ernst-s-flirtations-with-the-political-fringe-haunt-her-in-november-223054974.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory|publisher=Yahoo News|accessdate=13 August 2014}}</ref> (bolding indicates the edit) 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Joni Ernst#"opposes abortion", "opposes environmental regulation"

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#"opposes abortion", "opposes environmental regulation" (initiated 26 October 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Joni Ernst#Summary of positions, where the opening poster wrote:

    I would like to request a protected edit, to make the summary of her positions consistent with the coverage it received, per Vanamonde93. Before doing so, we need to establish consensus, so I am requesting here that editors weigh in. I propose that her positions on abortion and personhood are added to the summary in the lede.

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Bible#RFC: Article devoted exclusively to the Christian Bible

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bible#RFC: Article devoted exclusively to the Christian Bible (initiated 4 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:2014 Formula One season#RFC: FP1 drivers

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Formula One season#RFC: FP1 drivers (initiated 30 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Corona del Mar High School#Request for Comment on Corona del Mar High School hacking incident

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Corona del Mar High School#Request for Comment on Corona del Mar High School hacking incident (initiated 9 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

    The article includes references to controversies connected with Corona del Mar High School, including an incident where a tutor helped students hack the school's computers to change their grades. This incident in particular (as revealed on the talk page) is reported in over a dozen news sources (the majority coming up in just the first three pages of a general Google search), more the sources national than not. Should the material be removed as "disparaging", undue weight and/or "bad coverage"; should it be allowed per WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:NOTCENSORED; or should it be given its own article?

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Template talk:JPY#Shouldn't the link be piped as "JP¥"?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:JPY#Shouldn't the link be piped as "JP¥"? (initiated 11 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Template talk:Track listing#Track numbers for vinyl albums

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Track listing#Track numbers for vinyl albums (initiated 20 August 2014)? See the subsection Template talk:Track listing#RfC regarding track listings (initiated 1 October 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 114#Creation of the "Special talk:" namespace

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 114#Creation of the "Special talk:" namespace (initiated 18 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for page protection#Proposal to change the format of RfPP

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for page protection#Proposal to change the format of RfPP (initiated 6 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Traditional marriage#RFC : Has advocacy language snuck onto this page to framework the readers interpretation?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Traditional marriage#RFC : Has advocacy language snuck onto this page to framework the readers interpretation? (initiated 6 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Wikimedia sister projects#RfC: Should Wikinews be unhidden by default? (template)

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Wikimedia sister projects#RfC: Should Wikinews be unhidden by default? (template) (initiated 29 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#WP:BRD as essay

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#WP:BRD as essay (initiated 6 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

    As far as I can tell, there is pretty wide agreement that WP:BRD is a good thing, that things work a lot smoother when it's followed by all parties. Why, then, is it defined as only essay? When someone deviates from BRD in a contentious situation, and someone else calls him on it citing BRD, and he says, "Well, that's only an essay", what are the appropriate response and reaction to that? Do we have to go to talk just to establish consensus that BRD is to be followed?

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Authority to topic ban?

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Authority to topic ban? (initiated 2 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    No, a community consensus was not sought; general input was simply sought and given for a single action by Bishonen at the time. It was  Closed or archived sometime back, and there is no need to raise that one again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
    Ncmvocalist is exactly right, that was it. I wasn't looking to establish some instruction creep for WP:BAN (which would be better done at WT:BAN), but merely to seek advice in a specific case, and I got it. Here, I thanked people for their input and noted that I had decided what to do and implemented it. My note was probably not as prominent as it should have been, and the way the next person threaded theirs made mine almost invisible. And indeed people went on posting, with no-longer-needed further advice. In hindsight, I should have closed it instead of just saying "OK, all done, going to bed now", but, well, I was sleepy. There's no need to assess consensus. Bishonen | talk 12:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Appeal of broadly construed three month topic ban

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Appeal of broadly construed three month topic ban (initiated 22 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban for UrbanVillager

    Would an experienced editor admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban for UrbanVillager (initiated 31 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Topic bans are an admin function. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sergey Kryukov (2nd nomination)

    Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

     Not done It's been relisted. Number 57 21:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    Although the AfD discussion is not closed as yet since being relisted, I am marking this request as The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived. so it can be archived; the AfD can be relisted here once enough time has passed and if it is not close by then. It appears as if there is an overwhelming backlog at present. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Trypophobia#Removed_Image.

    It has been open for more than a year, and the last comments made over 2 months ago. Could someone officially close it? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Battle of Cedar Creek#Request for comment

    Is a consensus formed? If not, can you give it a few more weeks? If closed, I will start a new RM on the title itself. --George Ho (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 15

    Would an admin assess the consensus at:

    Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts 11:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 17

    Would an admin assess the consensus at:

    Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts 11:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

     Closed – Fayenatic London 20:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 18

    Would an admin assess the consensus at:

    Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts 12:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

     Closed – Fayenatic London 22:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 20

    Would an admin assess the consensus at:

    Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts 12:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 21

    Would an admin assess the consensus at:

    Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts 12:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

     Closed – Fayenatic London 21:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 23

    Would an admin assess the consensus at:

    Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts 12:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 24

    Would an admin assess the consensus at:

    Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts 12:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 25

    Would an admin assess the consensus at:

    Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts 12:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 26

    Would an admin assess the consensus at:

    Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts 12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    4 done, 5 to go. – Fayenatic London 22:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 27

    Would an admin assess the consensus at:

    Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts 12:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 28

    Would an admin assess the consensus at:

    Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts 12:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 29

    Would an admin assess the consensus at:

    Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts 12:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 30

    Would an admin assess the consensus at:

    Please see here for advice from an experienced CfD closer about how to implement CfD closes. Thanks. Lugnuts 12:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Cultural Marxism#Merger proposal

    • Please evaluate consensus here, and take the appropriate action. In this particular case, please be mindful of the large number of SPAs and IPs that have commented without providing any relevant reasoning behind their comments. RGloucester — ☎ 17:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    Category: