Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:46, 3 August 2014 editForbidden User (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,791 edits →Requests for closure ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:46, 3 August 2014 edit undoCunard (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users41,089 edits →Requests for closure: close requests; replyNext edit →
Line 70:		Line 70:
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 13 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I am considering putting up a proposal to require that all schools and colleges be subject to the exact same standards as any other topic, specifically significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to be considered notable." Is there a consensus that such a proposal would be a good one to submit to the community in a more widely advertised RfC?<p>There is a draft proposal in the subsection ]. ] (]) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)		Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 13 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I am considering putting up a proposal to require that all schools and colleges be subject to the exact same standards as any other topic, specifically significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to be considered notable." Is there a consensus that such a proposal would be a good one to submit to the community in a more widely advertised RfC?<p>There is a draft proposal in the subsection ]. ] (]) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
	:{{No action}} - Neither of these sections has been formally discussed in a way that permits consensus to be evaluated. If there is a desire to change the current guidelines, a properly formatted RFC should be published. ] (]) 02:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)		:{{No action}} - Neither of these sections has been formally discussed in a way that permits consensus to be evaluated. If there is a desire to change the current guidelines, a properly formatted RFC should be published. ] (]) 02:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
			::Per the revert mentioned at ] and the comment , I think this is a properly formatted RfC where consensus can be assessed.<p>My main reason for requesting a closure is to resolve the question: "Is there a consensus that such a proposal would be a good one to submit to the community in a more widely advertised RfC?" Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

	===]===		===]===
Line 85:		Line 86:
	===]===		===]===
	Could an uninvolved admin close this unactive but rather heated discussion. I made an attempt to close it but received a threat to AN/I instead. Thank you.] (]) 15:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)		Could an uninvolved admin close this unactive but rather heated discussion. I made an attempt to close it but received a threat to AN/I instead. Thank you.] (]) 15:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 July 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 16 June 2014)? See ] (initiated 16 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "A large amount of references were added to the article this am today. What is anyone's opinion on whether or not any reader can actually get to any of these materials to read and check the references that are cited inline in the article?"<p>If there is consensus to remove the references, please consider doing so. Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 29 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the following paragraph be included in this article?" Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should a list of journal articles written by ] be used in his biography?" Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 29 May 2014)? The previous close was reverted . The previous closure request is at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 20 June 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 July 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 21 June 2014)? Please consider the related discussion ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>is India referred to as a great power? and should it be included in the section "Aftermath of the Cold War" thought it already is icluding in the next section below "Emerging powers"</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 1 July 2014)? Please consider ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Note:Starting on a specific relevant article page, may need a further RFC with a refined question on some China/Korea/Japan or Song or Title guideline page after wards depending on progress. '''Question 1''' regarding English approximations of Korean Japanese Chinese titles: Should Korean, Japanese and Chinese, songs and albums where (condition 1) a clear English title is not used on cover artwork, and (condition 2) translated English versions only can be found in html sources, blogs and listings, and not consistently in English printed books, be considered an exception to ] title guidelines which are designed for songs and albums where a clear Latin-alphabet (e.g. English, Spanish, French) title exists, and defer to the policy objectives of ] which requires recognizability and as a result in all cases base names (e.g. ]) should redirect to a recognizable title giving artist name such as ] or ] (technically this is possible: see ] which redirects to ]). '''Question 2''' regarding Latin-script romanizations of Korean Japanese Chinese titles: Likewise in all cases where a song or album title is a romanization from Korean ], ] or Chinese ], then again base names should redirect to a recognizable title giving artist name, e.g. ]. The reason why this would be more needed for ], ], ] is that in all 3 languages there are multiple schemes and in Japanese and Chinese schemes a loss of the meaning given by ideograms.</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 27 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this be our lead image?" (] note: The discussion contains nudity.) Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 June 2014)? Please see the subsection ]. Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 July 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 25 June 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 July 2014)? See the subsection ] (initiated 11 July 2014)? The last comment was made 23 July 2014. Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 4 July 2014)? Please consider ] and ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 20 June 2014)? Please consider ], ], and ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 27 June 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 30 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the following content be included in this article?" Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 23 June 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 27 June 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 23 June 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from ]. Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 29 June 2014)? Please consider the earlier discussion ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 30 June 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 June 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 July 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from ]. Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 24 June 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from ]. Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 21 July 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 25 July 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 24 July 2014)? See the subsection ]. Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===] and ]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 30 July 2014) and ] (initiated 30 July 2014) regarding ]? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at ]. In your close, please consider the previous discussions related to archive.is:
			#] (initiated 18 August 2013)
			#] (initiated 18 August 2013)
			#] (initiated 17 September 2013)
			#] (initiated 20 September 2013)
			#] (initiated 2 October 2013)
			#] (initiated 31 October 2013)
			#] (initiated 23 November 2013)
			#] (initiated 3 December 2013)
			#] and ] (initiated 27 February 2014)
			#] (initiated 8 May 2014)
			#] (initiated 10 May 2014)
			#] (initiated 2 June 2014)
			#] (initiated 25 June 2014)
			#] (initiated 30 June 2014)
			#] (initiated 1 July 2014)
			#] (2 July 2014)
			Here are discussions with the ] closer:
			#] and ] (initiated 31 October 2013)
			#] and ] (initiated 11 November 2013)
			#] and ] (initiated 12 February 2014)
			#] and ] (initiated 19 May 2014)
			Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:46, 3 August 2014

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32	Archive 33
Archive 34	Archive 35	Archive 36
Archive 37	Archive 38	Archive 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.

Requests for closure

Talk:Bliss (image)#RfC: Inclusion of external links

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bliss (image)#RfC: Inclusion of external links (initiated 16 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No action The discussion has come to a natural end and parties have dispersed. Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the last comments in the section was "...Currently, vote count is 3-3, tie." An uninvolved editor is needed to determine if one side has a stronger policy-based position or if the result is no consensus.

In a recent RfC close, FormerIP (talk · contribs) closed Talk:Guy Fawkes Night#RFC:Ambiguous birth date for William? in favor of one side even though the vote count was also split 3–3. Cunard (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

NFCR discussions

Could an uninvolved admin/user with some knowledge of copyright/WP:NFCC take a look at this discussion and make a unbiased close? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:Drosera by synonymy

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:Drosera by synonymy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Concision razor#Userfy without redirect

Unopposed (except by author) suggestion to userfy-without-redirect another of this editor's failed policy-change proposals masquerading as WP:ESSAYs (cf. userspacing of User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle, and I think there've been others; maybe User:Born2cycle/Rationalized JDLI started that way). Userspacing proposed in April, and re-proposed recently after revisions made the page even more of a mess (see Misplaced Pages talk:Concision razor#A fresh look). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 02:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Songs written by Samuel Barnes (songwriter)

Would an uninvolved admin assess this, please? Erpert 20:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#Time to revisit schools?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#Time to revisit schools? (initiated 13 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I am considering putting up a proposal to require that all schools and colleges be subject to the exact same standards as any other topic, specifically significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to be considered notable." Is there a consensus that such a proposal would be a good one to submit to the community in a more widely advertised RfC?

There is a draft proposal in the subsection Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#Draft Proposal. Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No action - Neither of these sections has been formally discussed in a way that permits consensus to be evaluated. If there is a desire to change the current guidelines, a properly formatted RFC should be published. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Per the revert mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 13#Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC - Do we need a new section on state owned and/or operated news agencies? Are they excluded from RS? and the comment here, I think this is a properly formatted RfC where consensus can be assessed.

My main reason for requesting a closure is to resolve the question: "Is there a consensus that such a proposal would be a good one to submit to the community in a more widely advertised RfC?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Geographic reference#RfC: Should Template:Geographic reference be split into separate templates for each source?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Geographic reference#RfC: Should Template:Geographic reference be split into separate templates for each source? (initiated 16 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should Template:Geographic reference remain as a single template or should each of the separate citations be put into a separate template?"

Please consider Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 24#Template:Geographic reference in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?

An anon started an RfC on 14 July on Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?. I'm hoping we can keep the RfC brief, for obvious reasons. Would an uninvolved editor take a look and decide whether it can be closed yet? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 18:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest this RfC should not yet be closed. There has been additional discussion since you placed the above message, including a number of posts from today. Discussion points are valid and on track; I would be inclined to let this RfC continue to run. I don't particularly understand what the "obvious reasons" are to curtail this RfC? Unless, you are referring to the potential distress the discussion might cause to the family; in which case, there is no evidence any such distress exists. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The RFC was opened on 14 July 2014. The 30-day period is still running. Is there a reason why it is important to close it early? It doesn't appear to be a WP:SNOW case, and if it were, it would not have to be here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

WT:Verifiability#RfC, Insertion of a refimprove tag

This will be with us for awhile, so a close will be helpful going forward. Unscintillating (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Unscintillating:: I don't see any specific policy outcomes for that discussion, as the specific question (3RR exemption) is trivially answered but the broader question (who has the burden of justifying a tag) is not really something one could change by fiat as a result of the RfC, even if the discussion itself pointed us in a specific direction. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Frozen (2013 film)#Should the New York screening hosted by Disney and The Cinema Society be included in the article

Could an uninvolved admin close this unactive but rather heated discussion. I made an attempt to close it but received a threat to AN/I instead. Thank you.Forbidden User (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#WP:DIPLOMAT: notability of ambassadors

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#WP:DIPLOMAT: notability of ambassadors (initiated 2 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Thompson (Aryan Brotherhood)#Issues with large amount of references to the article today

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Thompson (Aryan Brotherhood)#Issues with large amount of references to the article today (initiated 16 June 2014)? See Talk:Michael Thompson (Aryan Brotherhood)#RfC (initiated 16 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "A large amount of references were added to the article this am today. What is anyone's opinion on whether or not any reader can actually get to any of these materials to read and check the references that are cited inline in the article?"

If there is consensus to remove the references, please consider doing so. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sabancı family#RFC: Inclusion of a paragraph in article

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sabancı family#RFC: Inclusion of a paragraph in article (initiated 29 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the following paragraph be included in this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Daniel Amen#RFC: List of journal articles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Daniel Amen#RFC: List of journal articles (initiated 2 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should a list of journal articles written by Daniel Amen be used in his biography?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Academi#Request for comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Academi#Request for comment (initiated 29 May 2014)? The previous close was reverted here. The previous closure request is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 12#Talk:Academi#Request for comment on merging of Blackwater article into. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Shock Doctrine#RfC regarding synopsis

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Shock Doctrine#RfC regarding synopsis (initiated 20 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll#RfC: Should we include the entry on Muslim Conquests?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll#RfC: Should we include the entry on Muslim Conquests? (initiated 5 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Germany#New RfC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Germany#New RfC (initiated 21 June 2014)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:Germany/Archive 21#RfC: Image to illustrate the Third Reich period in the main Germany article in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Great power#India

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Great power#India (initiated 28 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

is India referred to as a great power? and should it be included in the section "Aftermath of the Cold War" thought it already is icluding in the next section below "Emerging powers"

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan#RfC on Iraqi Kurdistan autonomy level (second proposal)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan#RfC on Iraqi Kurdistan autonomy level (second proposal) (initiated 1 July 2014)? Please consider Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan/Archive 1#RfC on Iraqi Kurdistan level of autonomy in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Damaged Lady#RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Damaged Lady#RFC (initiated 26 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Note:Starting on a specific relevant article page, may need a further RFC with a refined question on some China/Korea/Japan or Song or Title guideline page after wards depending on progress. Question 1 regarding English approximations of Korean Japanese Chinese titles: Should Korean, Japanese and Chinese, songs and albums where (condition 1) a clear English title is not used on cover artwork, and (condition 2) translated English versions only can be found in html sources, blogs and listings, and not consistently in English printed books, be considered an exception to WP:MUSIC title guidelines which are designed for songs and albums where a clear Latin-alphabet (e.g. English, Spanish, French) title exists, and defer to the policy objectives of WP:CRITERIA which requires recognizability and as a result in all cases base names (e.g. Damaged Lady) should redirect to a recognizable title giving artist name such as Damaged Lady (Kara song) or Can't Be A Lady (Kara song) (technically this is possible: see Harusame which redirects to Japanese destroyer Harusame (1937)). Question 2 regarding Latin-script romanizations of Korean Japanese Chinese titles: Likewise in all cases where a song or album title is a romanization from Korean hangul, Japanese script or Chinese hanzi, then again base names should redirect to a recognizable title giving artist name, e.g. Sugnyeo ga mos dwae (Kara song). The reason why this would be more needed for romanization of Korean, romanization of Japanese, romanization of Chinese is that in all 3 languages there are multiple schemes and in Japanese and Chinese schemes a loss of the meaning given by ideograms.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sunburn#Image

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sunburn#Image (initiated 27 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this be our lead image?" (Not safe for work note: The discussion contains nudity.) Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person#change or add tag line for "Criminal status" to "Judicial status" (or "propose name" status) for BLP

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#change or add tag line for "Criminal status" to "Judicial status" (or "propose name" status) for BLP (initiated 8 July 2014)? See the subsection Template talk:Infobox person#RfC on proposed change to have context specific tag for "criminal status" (initiated 11 July 2014)? The last comment was made 23 July 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move (initiated 4 July 2014)? Please consider Talk:Free! (anime)#Move and Talk:Free! (anime)#Bold rename following opposition to it in the RM above in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:YesAllWomen#Requests for comment; Gender breakdown

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:YesAllWomen#Requests for comment; Gender breakdown (initiated 20 June 2014)? Please consider Talk:YesAllWomen/Archive 2#Dispute regarding providing context to the killings, Talk:YesAllWomen/Archive 3#New rfc, and Talk:YesAllWomen/Archive 3#Reopening old RfC in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Other Probes (initiated 30 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the following content be included in this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Signatures#On the topic of "Appearance and color" and line-height (initiated 23 June 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (sports)#RfC: Should we consider a rewording of the intro paragraph of WP:NSPORTS?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (sports)#RfC: Should we consider a rewording of the intro paragraph of WP:NSPORTS? (initiated 29 June 2014)? Please consider the earlier discussion Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (sports)#Objections in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Archive 128#Time for the semi-annual enlarging of thumbnail images (initiated 14 July 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Help talk:Archiving a talk page#Size of Archives

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Archiving a talk page#Size of Archives (initiated 24 June 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistently mass-nominating templates for deletion during discussion

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistently mass-nominating templates for deletion during discussion (initiated 24 July 2014)? See the subsection Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More! and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive849#Close review: Conduct unbecoming of an administrator

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More! (initiated 30 July 2014) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive849#Close review: Conduct unbecoming of an administrator (initiated 30 July 2014) regarding Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct unbecoming of an administrator? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC 3

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC 3 (initiated 26 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. In your close, please consider the previous discussions related to archive.is:

Misplaced Pages:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 8#RotlinkBot approved? (initiated 18 August 2013)
Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/RotlinkBot (initiated 18 August 2013)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#Mass rollbacks required (initiated 17 September 2013)
Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC (initiated 20 September 2013)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Sophisticated mass vandalism from IP ranges? (initiated 2 October 2013)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255#WP:Archive.is RFC request for admin review of closure (initiated 31 October 2013)
MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2014/03#archive.is/T5OAy (initiated 23 November 2013)
MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013#archive.is (initiated 3 December 2013)
MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Now what to do? and permanent link (initiated 27 February 2014)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Archive.is headache (initiated 8 May 2014)
Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Archivedotisbot (initiated 10 May 2014)
Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC 2 (initiated 2 June 2014)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Archive.is (initiated 25 June 2014)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Serious BLP violations by Kww, Hasteur, Werieth, and possibly others (initiated 30 June 2014)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#New Account Using AWB to Remove Links to archive.is based "the RFC" (initiated 1 July 2014)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth#Followup discussion about archive.is links (2 July 2014)

Here are discussions with the Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC closer:

User talk:Hobit#Archive.is RFC closure unclear and permanent link (initiated 31 October 2013)
User talk:Hobit#Question re: Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC and permanent link (initiated 11 November 2013)
User talk:Hobit#Archive.is and permanent link (initiated 12 February 2014)
User talk:Hobit#Archive.is matter and permanent link (initiated 19 May 2014)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)