Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 02:50, 22 September 2014 editArmbrust (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers326,175 edits archive 2 sections← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:33, 22 September 2014 edit undoCunard (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users41,089 edits →Requests for closure: close requestsNext edit →
Line 53:		Line 53:
	:'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)		:'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
	:{{notdone}} The categories have already been de-populated (even before the RfC started, it appears), and redirects to the new category already implemented, which is consistent with the consensus there, albeit participation was low. A formal close does not seem necessary here. ]] 18:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)		:{{notdone}} The categories have already been de-populated (even before the RfC started, it appears), and redirects to the new category already implemented, which is consistent with the consensus there, albeit participation was low. A formal close does not seem necessary here. ]] 18:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
			::I withdraw this closure request. Thank you for reviewing this discussion, I JethroBT. ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	=== ] ===		=== ] ===
Line 125:		Line 126:

	This content dispute has been going on since April and the outcome will probably affect all ''Game of Thrones'' episode articles. The RfC covers two issues: 1) Does the web site Westeros.org fit the expert source criteria given at ] and 2) is the disputed sentence non-trivial enough to include in the article regardless of how it is sourced? If you address both issues in your summary, there will (hopefully) not be anything left for the participants to fight over. Seven editors have logged their responses to this RfC. ] (]) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)		This content dispute has been going on since April and the outcome will probably affect all ''Game of Thrones'' episode articles. The RfC covers two issues: 1) Does the web site Westeros.org fit the expert source criteria given at ] and 2) is the disputed sentence non-trivial enough to include in the article regardless of how it is sourced? If you address both issues in your summary, there will (hopefully) not be anything left for the participants to fight over. Seven editors have logged their responses to this RfC. ] (]) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 12 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 4 August 2014)? Please consider ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 15 August 2014)? See the subsection ] (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Should the lede contain the following phrase:
			{{Quotation\|He was also, according to a number of scholars and contemporaneous Armenian sources, the creator of the ] and ] alphabets.}}</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 7 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>]'s maiden name was "Shelley Wellons Moore". Is "Wellons" still a middle name for her (and therefore should be included in the full name provided in the intro to her bio)?</blockquote> Please consider the earlier discussion ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 16 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 August 2014)? The last comment was made 9 September 2014. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===] and ]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 September 2014) and ] (initiated 8 September 2014)? ] may be applicable for both discussions. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 9 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? If so, does by ] help readers understand that ISO 8601 uses the Gregorian calender, or hinder that understanding? If the Gregorian calendar is used, is the , , or some other wording best?</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 10 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Shall we merge this OpenOffice.org and the ] articles or is there sufficient evidence to indicate that they are separate projects?

			A side issue is, is there sufficient size for each article to exist on its own?

			Another side issue would be what to do with the current disambiguation page: ].</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 August 2014)? The consensus appears to be against the opening poster. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 13 August 2014)? The RfC's opening poster wrote: "Should Italian translation of the name be written in the lead since there is a separate section ." Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 June 2014)? See the subsection ] (initiated 10 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Should there be a mention of ] (SLC) on the ] (CF) article or not? Concretely, ():<p>...</blockquote>Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 4 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 7 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 20 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should ''The Simpsons Movie'' be included in this list of episodes?" Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 30 August 2014)? An editor wrote: "This thread was archived by a bot. I have unarchived it. Someone should close it and judge consensus." Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 11 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote in the subsection ] (initiated 17 August 2014): <blockquote>Should the article include the names of prominent Republicans subsequent to 1976 who have been openly critical of the GOP because they believe the Party leadership's views are too far to the right? If so, how should they be described?</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 21 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 13 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>The current version of the article uses very coarse language in the section dealing with social reactions to the match. The text at present is the following:
			:'''Current Text''': "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several videos with titles such as 'Young Brazilians get fucked by entire German Soccer Team' were uploaded."
			I propose that this section should be written in a more professional tone, and consider the following an improvement:
			:'''Proposal''': "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several of these videos were transferred to their network with sexually suggestive titles."
			Please let us know which of these two options are better and why.</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 3 September 2014)? ] may be applicable. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 August 2014)? ] may be applicable. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 20 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Should the Biography template be adjusted to include the "bdp=" parameter?</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 9 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 August 2014)? The last comment was made 31 August 2014‎.<p>The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at ]. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 August 2014)?<p>The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at ]. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 July 2014)?<p>The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at ]. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 12 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 11 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 31 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 13 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
			Would an admin review ] (initiated 25 August 2014)? Based on , the user has a spent a lot of time at ]. Although there is no consensus for a topic ban, would an admin let the user know about the concerns the community expressed in the discussion and give a final warning that further disruption will result in a block? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:33, 22 September 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.

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

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 talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 17#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure. Armbrust 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done The categories have already been de-populated (even before the RfC started, it appears), and redirects to the new category already implemented, which is consistent with the consensus there, albeit participation was low. A formal close does not seem necessary here. I, JethroBT 18:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I withdraw this closure request. Thank you for reviewing this discussion, I JethroBT. Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London? 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 talk:Link rot#Archive.is (initiated 17 September 2012)
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 104#Replacing WebCite citations with archive.is citations (initiated 24 July 2013)
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:Village pump (technical)/Archive 119#Proposal to Reduce the API limits to 1 edit/30 sec. for logged out users (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)

There is discussion going on, but I think those can be moved to somewhere else.Forbidden User (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be best to wait a little bit more for results from Chris's email. I know I'm waiting to update my views based on it as well as the email correspondense link. I imagine I am not the only one. PaleAqua (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been almost a week with no real discussion and no updates. Withdrawing my wait request. PaleAqua (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools#RfC: Should this article contain the section "other UNRWA incidents"?

Can someone close this? Nobody has replied for some days, and the consensus is unclear. This is perhaps because I did not phrase the question precisely. Kingsindian (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone close this? The RfC has run the full 30 days and has been delisted. Kingsindian (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Assistance requested at Fringe Theories Noticeboard

Will an administrator please assess the consensus at this proposal for a topic ban on the creation of new articles by User:Aditya soni in article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Now archived at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Assistance requested at Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Armbrust 06:07, 5 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt)

Will am administrator please assess the consensus on this request by User:HighKing to ease the topic ban? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt) 2. Armbrust 09:09, 13 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:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically?

Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically? (first initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipediocracy doxxing

This discussion (in particular, the proposal for a site ban) has run its course and should be closed. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 20:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

~~Please do not close until (at least) Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tutelary is concluded. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)~~
- The SPI is finished now, and this can be closed by an uninvolved administrator any time now. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 12

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

WP:ANI "Interaction ban between Carolmooredc and Sitush proposed"

This has just about run its course and I am requesting a formal statement of intent from Sitush at the ANI (at this point he tells people to look at his talk page). So at some point I'd like a formal close. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Premature request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content?

This content dispute has been going on since April and the outcome will probably affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. The RfC covers two issues: 1) Does the web site Westeros.org fit the expert source criteria given at WP:SPS and 2) is the disputed sentence non-trivial enough to include in the article regardless of how it is sourced? If you address both issues in your summary, there will (hopefully) not be anything left for the participants to fight over. Seven editors have logged their responses to this RfC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC: Blog source--usable for facts?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC: Blog source--usable for facts? (initiated 12 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ronn Torossian#RFC: mention of commentary in lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronn Torossian#RFC: mention of commentary in lead (initiated 4 August 2014)? Please consider Talk:Ronn Torossian#Relevance of political commentary in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Fields Medal#Table format

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fields Medal#Table format (initiated 15 August 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Fields Medal#RFC (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mesrop Mashtots#RfC for wording in the lead regarding the Georgian and Albanian alphabet

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mesrop Mashtots#RfC for wording in the lead regarding the Georgian and Albanian alphabet (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Should the lede contain the following phrase:
He was also, according to a number of scholars and contemporaneous Armenian sources, the creator of the Caucasian Albanian and Georgian alphabets.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Wellons

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Wellons (initiated 7 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Shelley Moore Capito's maiden name was "Shelley Wellons Moore". Is "Wellons" still a middle name for her (and therefore should be included in the full name provided in the intro to her bio)?

Please consider the earlier discussion Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Middle name in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Should this commentary on issues be included in BLP's

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Should this commentary on issues be included in BLP's (initiated 16 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Is this quote by Joni Ernst relevant for her bio?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Is this quote by Joni Ernst relevant for her bio? (initiated 28 August 2014)? The last comment was made 9 September 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 14#Robbery in lede RFC and Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RfC: Should article mention Brown had no (adult) criminal record?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 14#Robbery in lede RFC (initiated 2 September 2014) and Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RfC: Should article mention Brown had no (adult) criminal record? (initiated 8 September 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for both discussions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? (initiated 9 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? If so, does this edit by JMJimmy help readers understand that ISO 8601 uses the Gregorian calender, or hinder that understanding? If the Gregorian calendar is used, is the wording as of 7 August 2014 (UT), JMJimmy's wording, or some other wording best?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:OpenOffice.org#RfC on the topic

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:OpenOffice.org#RfC on the topic (initiated 10 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Shall we merge this OpenOffice.org and the Apache OpenOffice articles or is there sufficient evidence to indicate that they are separate projects?
A side issue is, is there sufficient size for each article to exist on its own?
Another side issue would be what to do with the current disambiguation page: OpenOffice.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Renewable energy sources#RfC: Is it possible to remove biomass & biofuel from the template without damaging the credibility of wikipedia?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Renewable energy sources#RfC: Is it possible to remove biomass & biofuel from the template without damaging the credibility of wikipedia? (initiated 2 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bosnian War#RfC: Factual accuracy and use of war-related terms

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bosnian War#RfC: Factual accuracy and use of war-related terms (initiated 2 August 2014)? The consensus appears to be against the opening poster. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Split, Croatia#Name

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Split, Croatia#Name (initiated 13 August 2014)? The RfC's opening poster wrote: "Should Italian translation of the name be written in the lead since there is a separate section Name." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Artpop#"Manicure" vs. "MANiCURE" (initiated 26 June 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Artpop#RfC: Should a song title be listed with non-standard capitalization? (initiated 10 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pectinidae#RfC: Splitting and joining Scallop & Pectinidae

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pectinidae#RfC: Splitting and joining Scallop & Pectinidae (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Constant folding#RfC: Mention string literal concatenation

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Constant folding#RfC: Mention string literal concatenation (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Should there be a mention of string literal concatenation (SLC) on the constant folding (CF) article or not? Concretely, proposed edit (diff):
...

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Girl Next Door (2004 film)#RfC:Is use of the .7B.7Bstory.7D.7D template appropriate for a plot summary of a fictional film?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Girl Next Door (2004 film)#RfC:Is use of the .7B.7Bstory.7D.7D template appropriate for a plot summary of a fictional film? (initiated 5 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes#RfC: Inclusion of Simpsons Movie (initiated 22 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should The Simpsons Movie be included in this list of episodes?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox (initiated 30 August 2014)? An editor wrote: "This thread was archived by a bot. I have unarchived it. Someone should close it and judge consensus." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party (United States)#More recent progressive wing

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republican Party (United States)#More recent progressive wing (initiated 11 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote in the subsection Talk:Republican Party (United States)#Request for comments (initiated 17 August 2014):

Should the article include the names of prominent Republicans subsequent to 1976 who have been openly critical of the GOP because they believe the Party leadership's views are too far to the right? If so, how should they be described?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Turkish presidential election, 2014#RfC: Should Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu's colour be red or blue?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkish presidential election, 2014#RfC: Should Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu's colour be red or blue? (initiated 21 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)#RfC: Is the profanity in the article relevant?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)#RfC: Is the profanity in the article relevant? (initiated 13 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

The current version of the article uses very coarse language in the section dealing with social reactions to the match. The text at present is the following:
Current Text: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several videos with titles such as 'Young Brazilians get fucked by entire German Soccer Team' were uploaded."

I propose that this section should be written in a more professional tone, and consider the following an improvement:

Proposal: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several of these videos were transferred to their network with sexually suggestive titles."
Please let us know which of these two options are better and why.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not#Major change: Journalism -> Original reporting_Original_report-Requests_for_closure-2014-09-22T08:33:00.000Z">

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not#Major change: Journalism -> Original reporting (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)_Original_report"> _Original_report">

Template talk:WikiProject Biography#RfC: BDP in Biography template

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:WikiProject Biography#RfC: BDP in Biography template (initiated 20 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Should the Biography template be adjusted to include the "bdp=" parameter?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2014 September#Budweiser

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2014 September#Budweiser (initiated 9 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/30 SW

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/30 SW (initiated 26 August 2014)? The last comment was made 31 August 2014‎.

The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 7#Category:Misplaced Pages articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 7#Category:Misplaced Pages articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Digital movie cameras and Category:Camcorder films

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Digital movie cameras and Category:Camcorder films? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Villages in Hama merge and rename of Category:Subdistricts of Hama

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Villages in Hama merge and rename of Category:Subdistricts of Hama? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin review Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Need a close and enforcement of consensus at a deletion review (initiated 25 August 2014)? Based on the user's contributions, the user has a spent a lot of time at IPhone 6. Although there is no consensus for a topic ban, would an admin let the user know about the concerns the community expressed in the discussion and give a final warning that further disruption will result in a block? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:

Administrative backlog