|
Archives |
---|
Threads older than 90 days may be archived by ClueBot III. |
The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications.
Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.
Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 12 March 2016); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.
If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.
Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. Be prepared to wait for someone to review the discussion. If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have.
A request for comment discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for articles for deletion and move discussions—see Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for details.
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.
Contents
- 1 Requests for closure
- 1.1 Requests for comment
- 1.1.1 Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Use_of_national_flag_icons_on_each_launch_payload
- 1.1.2 Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections
- 1.1.3 Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality
- 1.1.4 Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control
- 1.1.5 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead
- 1.1.6 Talk:Russell Wilson#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed?
- 1.1.7 Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation
- 1.1.8 Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article?
- 1.1.9 Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing
- 1.1.10 Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun?
- 1.1.11 Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011
- 1.1.12 Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine
- 1.1.13 Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article
- 1.1.14 Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams"
- 1.1.15 Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts
- 1.1.16 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#The word "like"
- 1.1.17 Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
- 1.1.18 Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Request for comment: How to deal with this article
- 1.1.19 RfC: Should the events be removed?
- 1.1.20 Talk:Time Person of the Year#Rfc: Elizabeth II
- 1.1.21 Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Close down Possibly Unfree Files
- 1.1.22 Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#RfC: War faction or country infobox?
- 1.1.23 Talk:Sea Mither#Simple
- 1.1.24 Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#RfC: Placement of video
- 1.1.25 Talk:English Democrats#RfC: Far right
- 1.1.26 Talk:Hindu_philosophy#Requested_move_21_March_2016
- 1.1.27 Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#RfC:_Emphasize_benchmark_dates_in_Bach_Legacy_time_line_instead_of_using_arbitrary_century_markers_like_1800.2C_1900.2C_2000_etc.
- 1.1.28 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Which version to go with?
- 1.1.29 Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
- 1.1.30 Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Proposed merge with Big the Cat
- 1.1.31 Talk:Lindsay Lohan#Proposed merge with Lindsay Lohan discography
- 1.1.32 Talk:David Irving#RfC: Is the last suggested version regarding David Irving's position on the Holocaust acceptable to be added ("Höfle Telegram material")
- 1.1.33 Talk:Vladimir Putin#Rfc regarding sentence in the lede
- 1.1.34 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism?
- 1.1.35 Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes
- 1.1.36 Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc.
- 1.1.37 Talk:Penny#WP:ENGVAR
- 1.1.38 Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Rfc: How shall Elizabeth II be presented?
- 1.1.39 Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Scottish & Welsh First Ministers infoboxes
- 1.1.40 Talk:Vyborg#Historical affiliations infobox
- 1.1.41 Talk:1st century#RfC: Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"?
- 1.1.42 Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Generic gun photo
- 1.1.43 Template talk:PBB#RfC: Should template:PBB cease operating by transulating subpage onto each article
- 1.1.44 Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers#RfC: Should IBM 2841 be a separate article and should it list the IBM 7320
- 1.1.45 Talk:Stack Overflow#Criticism
- 1.1.46 Talk:Maxinquaye#Recent revision to the lead
- 1.1.47 Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover?
- 1.1.48 Talk:Sicario (2015 film)#Request for comment
- 1.1.49 Talk:Israel#Should the same language be used in the lead for Israel and for Palestine?
- 1.1.50 Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal
- 1.1.51 Talk:Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002#Spanish response
- 1.1.52 Talk:Alt-right#RfC: Merge to Richard B. Spencer
- 1.1.53 Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC: Criticism subsection
- 1.1.54 Talk:Federal Way Public Academy#RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools?
- 1.1.55 Talk:Marco Rubio#RfC: Should Senator Rubio's portrait be replaced?
- 1.1.56 Talk:Corporal punishment#RfC: Merge "Campaigns against corporal punishment" into "Corporal punishment"?
- 1.1.57 Talk:Shrauta#RfC: move page to Śrauta
- 1.1.58 Talk:Pepperdine University#RfC: Should the current "In popular culture" section be significantly modified or deleted?
- 1.1.59 Talk:The Shannara Chronicles#RFC for Episode List Format
- 1.1.60 Talk:European_Graduate_School#RfC
- 1.1.61 Template talk: Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Exclusion of popular vote
- 1.2 Backlogs
- 1.3 XfD
- 1.3.1 Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg
- 1.3.2 Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sargun Mehta/1
- 1.3.3 Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 18#File:The Testament of Sister New Devil Vol.1 Blu-Ray.jpg
- 1.3.4 Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_3#Template:Egyptian_Gods_Genealogy
- 1.4 Administrative
- 1.4.1 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment?
- 1.4.2 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#User:Mhhossein and SaffV reported for harassment
- 1.4.3 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD
- 1.4.4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrawos Bassous (2nd nomination)
- 1.5 Requested moves
- 1.1 Requests for comment
Requests for closure
Requests for comment
Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Use_of_national_flag_icons_on_each_launch_payload
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Use_of_national_flag_icons_on_each_launch_payload Cheers. (Initiated 0 days ago on 11 April 2016) N2e (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections (Initiated 122 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- On hold There is an open sock investigation of one of the RFC participants for voting irregularities relating to this article. It it results in a block then I believe it may be appropriate to strike their !votes before evaluating a close. Alsee (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Alsee: please provide status update or follow up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ncmvocalist, it looks like SPI is probably backlogged. See the sock investigation link I gave. It's still listed as open, with no response yet from any admin, clerk, or checkuser. Once it's resolved anyone can remove the "On Hold" and close it. Alsee (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Alsee: please provide status update or follow up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality (Initiated 119 days ago on 14 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- not done as further edits seem to have overtaken the last participation in the RfC so as to make formal assessment unnecessary unless a participant requires. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:
1. Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature?
2. Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?
- Agree, its a hotly contested article in the GMO area that was part of a recent Arbcom case, and should be closed. I cant close it because of my involvement in that case, but even if I could I wouldnt as a NAC. AlbinoFerret 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think that Ncmvocalist is correct. Nobody seems to be edit-warring over those two questions, a lot has changed since then (more than 200 edits and work by User:SlimVirgin and User:Tryptofish, both of whom are skilled with this sort of problem), a practical compromise seems to be in place, and the person who started the RFC retired weeks ago and requested that his account be blocked. The likely outcome is only to enshrine, as The Eternal Consensus™, the results of a single discussion about whether the words "peer-review" should appear in the article (current, stable state: yes, but maybe not as many times as some anti-GMO POV pushers would like) and whether the articles should be used as primary sources (current, stable state: the re-published one is cited as a source to say that it was re-published, and both versions are prominently linked as ==External links==, which is probably more than some pro-GMO POV pushers would like). It would probably be better to leave this alone, and let editors use their best judgment over time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, its a hotly contested article in the GMO area that was part of a recent Arbcom case, and should be closed. I cant close it because of my involvement in that case, but even if I could I wouldnt as a NAC. AlbinoFerret 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control (Initiated 77 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion was archived, and there is relatively little firm consensus. As an alternative to un-archiving it solely for the sake of saying "many good comments, but not much consensus for specific actions here" – something that ought to be perfectly obvious to the experienced editors who participated in that discussion – I'm marking this request done and leaving it in the archive. WhatamIdoing (talk)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead
We need an experienced editor to assess the discussion in the above link. The difference of opinion lies in whether an article about a train station, or railway station, should begin with simply the name of the station (for example, "Culver City") or whether it should begin with the title of the article, like "Culver City station." Discussion has tapered off; recent remarks have simply repeated the arguments made earlier. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 49 days ago on 22 February 2016)
- BeenAroundAWhile, it's obvious that editors prefer option #1, but your RFC, despite being on the talk page for a guideline, never included any sort of proposal to change the words in the guideline. I'm therefore uncertain what you're looking for: Someone to officially decree that editors prefer to begin articles about train stations with "Gotham train station is..." instead of "Gotham is..." at a rate of approximately 10:1? That seems pointless to me, but it could be done. Did you want someone to add a "rule" in MOS:LEAD about the One True Wording™ for the first sentence of articles about transit stations? There is no sensible place to do that. MOS:LEAD is for all the articles, not for one subject area (or even two or three subject areas). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: This is a good point. It would seem like possibly the place to put this result would be WP:STATIONS (
after adding a 'Lead' section thereactually, it looks like the new addition would go in the 'Structure' section there, which already discusses the lead). But I agree with BeenAroundAWhile that the consensus on this one is clear, and the result of this RfC needs to be "codified" somewhere... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)- WikiProjects pages are a bit like user pages; we can't demand that a particular group of editors declare that they recommend what other people have decided. However, if it had been me, I would have started the discussion there. (Also, I would have split their limited advice on to a subpage and tagged it with {{WikiProject style advice}}.)
- I do not see the point of "codifying" anything here. The English Wikipedia explicitly, by policy, does not have legal codes. The point of closing a discussion is to help people figure out what the result of that one-time discussion was – assuming that they need any help, which in this case I seriously doubt – not to declare that this is the rule and that consensus can't change (or at least can't change without a huge fight). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- This strikes me as a kind of WP:BURO response – because this RfC didn't get posted to exactly the "right place", and in exactly the "right way", it doesn't count for anything?... It was held in what could be argued is the right place – MOS:LEAD. It was even advertised at WT:STATIONS. So the idea that it carries no "weight" there strikes me as an odd claim... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I've explained myself clearly. It is indeed a WP:NOTBURO response: IMO there is no need to jump through bureaucratic hoops like "have an uninvolved editor write a formal closing statement" or "codify the result in a guideline". Use the results of the discussion, but don't be all bureaucratic about it.
- My point about STATIONS is only that some volunteers (e.g., non-members who were involved in the discussion) can't force other volunteers (e.g., members of that WikiProject) to promote this view as if it were their own advice. That group can volunteer to include it, but we can't force them to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- This strikes me as a kind of WP:BURO response – because this RfC didn't get posted to exactly the "right place", and in exactly the "right way", it doesn't count for anything?... It was held in what could be argued is the right place – MOS:LEAD. It was even advertised at WT:STATIONS. So the idea that it carries no "weight" there strikes me as an odd claim... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: This is a good point. It would seem like possibly the place to put this result would be WP:STATIONS (
Talk:Russell Wilson#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Russell Wilson#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed? (Initiated 66 days ago on 5 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Seems to be a moot point. An editor updated his ancestry using a source published since the RfC began. Fences&Windows 21:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation (Initiated 61 days ago on 10 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article? (Initiated 76 days ago on 26 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing (Initiated 77 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun? (Initiated 63 days ago on 8 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011 (Initiated 69 days ago on 2 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine (Initiated 67 days ago on 4 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article (Initiated 62 days ago on 9 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams"
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams" (Initiated 78 days ago on 24 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts (Initiated 78 days ago on 24 January 2016)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#The word "like"
This needs an accurate analysis before a closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 61 days ago on 10 February 2016)
Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? (Initiated 56 days ago on 15 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note that one of the editors in the discussion has requested admin closure, by someone who is familiar with MFD [1]. Sunrise (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Request for comment: How to deal with this article
IMHO, this Rfc's options have been unintentionally worded in a non-neutral style & therefore, the Rfc should be closed. Note I've opened up a new Rfc, which presents the same options, but rather in a neutral style. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 56 days ago on 15 February 2016)
- Comment: This RfC should not be closed in isolation - there is also an associated merge discussion ongoing, and the two are closely related. (For example, a couple of votes in the merge discussion are apparently based on reasons presented in the previous RfC.) In my opinion, the new RfC simply adds to the considerable unnecessary verbiage on the page. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Update: The first Rfc has expired as no consensus for any of the 3 options. Furthermore, I've closed the second Rfc (that I had opened), per StAnselm's point, about "unnecessary verbiage".:) GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Further comment: The original RfC was closed as no consensus by the originator a few days ago, and this close has not been contested. It would be helpful if someone could close the merge discussion, though. StAnselm (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Notifying Jack Upland, as he's the merge nominator. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled about where this page is heading...--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- My first choice is for the page to be deleted. My second choice is to split it up & merge its parts into the 2 articles you nominated to merge with. Most of all, let's hope the article-in-question won't be used as a vehicle for promoting the We don't know argument, across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled about where this page is heading...--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Notifying Jack Upland, as he's the merge nominator. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Should the events be removed?
I'm requesting an admin or an experienced user to assess the consensus at the mentioned page. (Initiated 52 days ago on 19 February 2016) Mhhossein (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Time Person of the Year#Rfc: Elizabeth II
This Rfc has reached its 30th day. We need an administrator to close it & make his/her own interpretation of the results. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Close down Possibly Unfree Files
Consensus is fairly obvious to close down PUF and merge it with WP:FFD. The closure should be uncontentious, but the enacting of the results will require some work. Posting this here so if anyone wants to go through the grunt work of closing down and marking "historical" the PUF process and then redirecting users in the relevant documentation to WP:FFD, they can get started on that. Also, someone will have to move the backlog of cases from PUF (or clear them) as well. Thanks for any help! --Jayron32 18:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 7#Discussion regarding updating FFD to accommodate the NFCR merge could potentially be referenced for most necessary steps that need to be taken for this merge. The only major differences between the referenced section and the PUF to FFD merge are that no venue is getting renamed and the changes that will need to be made to AnomieBOT's function are slightly different (the bot will have to stop making daily subpages for PUF after the merge has been finalized.) I made some attempt to work out the NFCR to FFD merge, so feel free to ping me with any questions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#RfC: War faction or country infobox?
This RfC expired a week ago, but was never closed. A formal closure is needed, as involved editors are starting to make a bit of a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Sea Mither#Simple
Per WP:SNOW, but the primary editors of the article refuse to acknowledge consensus. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Not done for now. The discussion, as it stands, is only one day old. In addition, I am not seeing any attempt at consensus-building or civility there (it's full of PA), so unless both parties (primarily the editor who filed this request) start a constructive discussion without resorting to verbal artillery, I'm afraid that this discussion will go nowhere. Esquivalience t 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#RfC: Placement of video
This RfC has been open since 14 February has seen no activity for about 10 days. Since this deals with a contentious issue that is certain to come up again, it would be helpful if this was closed by a previously uninvolved admin (or possibly more than one). before closing this RfC, it would be useful to read through the discussion below and to have a thorough understanding of how embedding files works on Wikipedia. Right Hand Drive (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:English Democrats#RfC: Far right
Expired RfC does not appear to let the actual article remain on a consensus version without official closure. I think it is possible to determine consensus and close it, so I am requesting it here. LjL (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Hindu_philosophy#Requested_move_21_March_2016
Would an experienced user or Admin, assess the consensus and move the page if deemed so?VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#RfC:_Emphasize_benchmark_dates_in_Bach_Legacy_time_line_instead_of_using_arbitrary_century_markers_like_1800.2C_1900.2C_2000_etc.
Really need an administrator to close this one, because this was the third RfC on the same subject in 80 days, and a lot of unorthodox behavior is involved. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Which version to go with?
This RfC recently expired. Would be good to get an official close on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC: Place of birth in Infobox (initiated on 17 February 2016)? The original RfC (initiated on 13 January 2016) was closed improperly and overturned here. The subsequent RfC was bot-removed as expired on 18 March 2016. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Concur with Daicaregos. We need closure. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Proposed merge with Big the Cat
- Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Proposed merge with Big the Cat needs formal closure czar 04:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not done I closed, then reverted my close when I saw it was initiated 03:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC). No need for controversy of someone possibly complaining about an early non-admin close. Alsee (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Lindsay Lohan#Proposed merge with Lindsay Lohan discography
Consensus needs to be evaluated. --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:David Irving#RfC: Is the last suggested version regarding David Irving's position on the Holocaust acceptable to be added ("Höfle Telegram material")
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Irving#RfC: Is the last suggested version regarding David Irving's position on the Holocaust acceptable to be added ("Höfle Telegram material") (Initiated 55 days ago on 16 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Vladimir Putin#Rfc regarding sentence in the lede
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Putin#Rfc regarding sentence in the lede (Initiated 52 days ago on 19 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism? (Initiated 50 days ago on 21 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes (Initiated 40 days ago on 2 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc.
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc. (Initiated 45 days ago on 26 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Penny#WP:ENGVAR
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Penny#WP:ENGVAR (Initiated 63 days ago on 8 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Rfc: How shall Elizabeth II be presented?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Rfc: How shall Elizabeth II be presented? (Initiated 61 days ago on 10 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Scottish & Welsh First Ministers infoboxes
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Scottish & Welsh First Ministers infoboxes (Initiated 49 days ago on 22 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Vyborg#Historical affiliations infobox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vyborg#Historical affiliations infobox (Initiated 39 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:1st century#RfC: Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1st century#RfC: Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"? (Initiated 39 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Generic gun photo
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Generic gun photo (Initiated 38 days ago on 4 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Template talk:PBB#RfC: Should template:PBB cease operating by transulating subpage onto each article
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:PBB#RfC: Should template:PBB cease operating by transulating subpage onto each article (Initiated 39 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers#RfC: Should IBM 2841 be a separate article and should it list the IBM 7320
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers#RfC: Should IBM 2841 be a separate article and should it list the IBM 7320 (Initiated 48 days ago on 23 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Stack Overflow#Criticism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stack Overflow#Criticism (Initiated 45 days ago on 26 February 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this be included? Can Medium be considered a reliable source in this context, regardless of what WP:RS says about blogs?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Maxinquaye#Recent revision to the lead
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maxinquaye#Recent revision to the lead (Initiated 50 days ago on 21 February 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Maxinquaye#RfC on lead. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover? (Initiated 48 days ago on 23 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Sicario (2015 film)#Request for comment
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sicario (2015 film)#Request for comment (Initiated 39 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Israel#Should the same language be used in the lead for Israel and for Palestine?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israel#Should the same language be used in the lead for Israel and for Palestine? (Initiated 58 days ago on 13 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal (Initiated 39 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002#Spanish response
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002#Spanish response (Initiated 54 days ago on 17 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Alt-right#RfC: Merge to Richard B. Spencer
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alt-right#RfC: Merge to Richard B. Spencer (Initiated 36 days ago on 6 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC: Criticism subsection
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC: Criticism subsection (Initiated 50 days ago on 21 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Federal Way Public Academy#RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Federal Way Public Academy#RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools? (Initiated 43 days ago on 28 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Marco Rubio#RfC: Should Senator Rubio's portrait be replaced?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marco Rubio#RfC: Should Senator Rubio's portrait be replaced? (Initiated 42 days ago on 29 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Corporal punishment#RfC: Merge "Campaigns against corporal punishment" into "Corporal punishment"?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Corporal punishment#RfC: Merge "Campaigns against corporal punishment" into "Corporal punishment"? (Initiated 40 days ago on 2 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Shrauta#RfC: move page to Śrauta
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shrauta#RfC: move page to Śrauta (Initiated 51 days ago on 20 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Pepperdine University#RfC: Should the current "In popular culture" section be significantly modified or deleted?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pepperdine University#RfC: Should the current "In popular culture" section be significantly modified or deleted? (Initiated 58 days ago on 13 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:The Shannara Chronicles#RFC for Episode List Format
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Shannara Chronicles#RFC for Episode List Format (Initiated 58 days ago on 13 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:European_Graduate_School#RfC
An uninvolved admin needed to close. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template talk: Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Exclusion of popular vote
We need an uninvolved admin to close the RfC on whether or not the popular vote should be included in the template. That discussion is located here. Please note that this topic has also been discussed outside of the RfC. Thanks. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Backlogs
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure
This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 170 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 2016. (23:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion
This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 95 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 2016. (02:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Requested moves
We currently have 89 discussions in the backlog, and it's growing every day. Several of them date to January 2016.--Cúchullain t/c 21:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 February
We currently have two move review discussions waiting closer since February 2016.--Cúchullain t/c 14:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 March
We currently have two move review discussions waiting closer since March 2016.--Cúchullain t/c 14:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
XfD
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg (Initiated 183 days ago on 11 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Steel1943 relisted the discussion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 24#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sargun Mehta/1
The subject GAR is open for community reassessment since October 2015. Need someone to conclude it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 18#File:The Testament of Sister New Devil Vol.1 Blu-Ray.jpg
Would an admin please close Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 18#File:The Testament of Sister New Devil Vol.1 Blu-Ray.jpg, or perhaps relist it if you think that is appropriate. It just seems to have been left open, and there hasn't been any new comments in over a month. Calathan (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_3#Template:Egyptian_Gods_Genealogy
Uninvolved editor needed to perform the close. Consensus is fairly clear, but I'm involved. (Initiated 39 days ago on 3 March 2016) Thanks! ~ RobTalk 03:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Administrative
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment?
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment? (Initiated 38 days ago on 4 March 2016)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic Ban. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#User:Mhhossein and SaffV reported for harassment
I'm requesting an admin to assess the consensus at this thread. Besides multiple other uncivilities by the nominator (such as when he told me that I was "tripping on acid" or "belonged in a place where I should be taken care of on hourly basis") he did not refrain from making further attacks by saying "your "just for fun reverts" appear childish to me", "...then just use a thesaurus or ask an adult" and "the English you used was childish and quite wrong". After reporting it, he surprisingly repeated his attack on the ANI page! I have explained in detail how many times he had been warned by admins to resolve his major civility issues. Thank you. (Initiated 33 days ago on 9 March 2016) Mhhossein (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD
Respectfully request an uninvolved administrator please assess the proposal of uninvolved editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrawos Bassous (2nd nomination)
Relist has gone well over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Requested moves
- Talk:See You Again (Wiz Khalifa song)#Requested move 29 February 2016; thread has been open for over a month, and RMs typically last a week. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- There's a huge backlog at RM if anyone wants to help out. I've just done around 20, but still loads left... Number 57 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Talk:The_Signpost_(Wikipedia)#Requested_move_3_March_2016 = been open for over one month. Would like it to be closed either way so we can move on and focus on Quality improvement of the article itself. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)