Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:10, 17 January 2014 editArmbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers325,694 edits →Talk:Riga supermarket roof collapse#List of deceased: Paragraph of bulleted points in columns?: done← Previous edit Revision as of 11:23, 17 January 2014 edit undoArmbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers325,694 edits →Talk:Liberty University#RfC: Is a John Lofton's American View material suitable for inclusion?: doneNext edit →
Line 173: Line 173:
===]=== ===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 4 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 4 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 11:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 11:23, 17 January 2014

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    Archives
    Index
    Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
    Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
    Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
    Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
    Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
    Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
    Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
    Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
    Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
    Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
    Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
    Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
    Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39

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

    The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications.

    Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days (opened on or before 27 November 2024); where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed if the discussion was open less than seven days ago (posted after 20 December 2024) except in the case of WP:SNOW.

    Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. If there is disagreement 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.

    Notes about closing

    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

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

    Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights and Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment (initiated 24 October 2013)? Although the RfC has only two participants, previous discussions on the talk page have had significant participation:

    1. Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights (initiated 24 August 2013)
    2. Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"? (initiated 22 October 2013)
    3. Talk:Mark Steyn#So now we have a edit war (initiated 22 October 2013)

    My recommendation to the closer is to make the later sections on the talk page (Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"?, Talk:Mark Steyn#So now we have a edit war, and Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment) subsections of the earlier section about the dispute Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights. Then please consider the arguments made in all the sections and determine the consensus (or lack of it).

    The dispute is about the phrasing in the lead sentence (describing the subject as a "free-speech activist", "free-speech advocate", and/or "human rights activist"). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

    Here's the complicating factor IMO: IMO (based on my recollection which could be wrong) the "stable version" said "Mark Steyn is... a self-described free-speech activist", and since "self-described" has too much of a "so-called" vibe, pretty much nobody wants that. This was changed to "Mark Steyn is... a free-speech activist", but IMO that's not a valid stable version (it was let stand by me and others to avoid warring over the matter; that is, there was no consensus to replace "self-described free-speech activist" with "free-speech activist" as opposed to replacing "self-described free-speech activist" with nothing, it just ended that way randomly because the "replace 'self-described free-speech activist' with nothing" faction didn't wish to battle over the matter.)
    So IMO looking at it and saying "no consensus, keep current stable version" won't work here. Somebody, somehow, has to decide between these two lede openings:
    • "Mark Steyn (born December 8, 1959) is a Canadian-born writer, conservative political commentator and free speech activist."
    • "Mark Steyn (born December 8, 1959) is a Canadian-born writer and conservative political commentator."
    I summed this up at Talk:Mark Steyn#Arbitrarary break, let's look at where we are, hopefully fairly and helpfully. Reading that will give a quick and (I hope) fair overview. Since we see a 5-5-2 (or maybe 6-6) split in headcount, it looks like our options are to run another (properly listed) RfC on this fairly trivial matter, or for some uninvolved person to decide based on strength of argument. (I hope that the person deciding would consider best practices for ledes generally and what we do with similar articles, but that's up to her.) It can be done in about an hour or so is my guess. Herostratus (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    If it helps motivate anyone, I just cleared the second-oldest entry on this list, so maybe someone will help us out on this one? Herostratus (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English (initiated 19 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote:

    There have been various discussions over the last few months both on this talk page and at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit") Archive 1, Archive 2 (and probably elsewhere, I can't remember!), resulting in a recent AfD, and subsequent overturning of the "merge" decision to "no censensus" at the deletion review. We seem to be at a stalemate situation, with one group of editors fully supporting a merge, and another dead against it, and to be frank, it has turned a little nasty. We really need wider views on this, but I hope any editor wishing to contribute here will take the time to read the previous history and fully take into account the points raised by both sides in the past. It may be a good idea for us editors who have been most active in the previous discussions to take minimal part in this one, in order to have some fresh opinions given, and to avoid the same spiral we have been going down. Points that should be addressed should consider whether there is a necessity to have separate articles, or whether a single umbrella article will do, and if multiple articles are deemed necessary, how these should be named with regard to the use of Chinese characters in the article titles. Thanks!

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Patriotic Nigras#RfC: Should the Patriotic Nigras Website link be included in the article?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Patriotic Nigras#RfC: Should the Patriotic Nigras Website link be included in the article? (initiated 11 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Should the website of a known trolling and hacking group be included in this article and does it or could it present a serious security risk to Misplaced Pages viewers and editors and therefore should be removed?" A participant wrote:

    This RfC after an unsuccessful AfD, an ELNO-based removal, a claim that the URL doesn't in fact reflect an official website, and an AN/I request) ...

    An RfC close will hopefully resolve this dispute which has been occurring since at least November 2012 (see ELNO-based removal). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Note: The discussion was "closed" by User:Thibbs on 11 December 2013 with no comments or interpretations of consensus. Thibbs' edit summary reads: "Closing expired RfC without comment or summary. Someone else can add that if it's felt to be necessary." User:Thibbs was a part of the discussion and his close should probably be reverted per WP:INVOLVED and then the RFC closed appropriately. There has been no discussion since 20 November 2013. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    Objection: Hi ТимофейЛееСуда and others. I just wanted to note that I object to the idea that any of my edits have implicated WP:INVOLVED. We should be clear here that I'm not an admin and that I wasn't performing any kind of administrative action. As noted above, the RfC had already expired and when I "closed" the thread there hadn't been a comment in over 3 weeks. The consensus is exceptionally clear in this case and my neutral "close" (i.e. "without comment or summary") explicitly invited comments from others. Even if I were an admin I'd vouchsafe that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion as I had. Anyway feel free to revert my "closure" if it was indeed inappropriate but I think it would be a ridiculous waste of time, and I disagree that it's "per WP:INVOLVED". -Thibbs (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    No objections to a formal closure with comment and summary of course. -Thibbs (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Swdandap malfeasance

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Swdandap malfeasance (initiated 17 December 2013)? Please assess whether there is a consensus for a block. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    I would also like this looked at and don't feel comfortable doing it myself since another editor thought I was not impartial. Don't think this should be just dropped like the first ANI was regarding same stuff from same person. — Brianhe (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law (initiated 3 September 2013)? At Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Restoring (and then closing) a deleted RFC, the RfC initiator wrote: "Incidentally, once the RFC is restored, it would be great if an administrator could then close it, as there had been no new posts for several weeks." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Petronilla of Aragon#Request for comment on main image

    Would an experience editor assess the consensus at Talk:Petronilla_of_Aragon#Request_for_comment_on_main_image which was opened on Oct 9, 2013? The discussion is of moderate length and is in regard to a proposed photo and whether or not it is suitable for the article. Thank you, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Days of the year#new sections including for organizations and places named for dates

    The rfc template was removed, so the outcome must have been obvious, but two of us disagree on which way the result went. Could an uninvolved admin please formally close it? Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#RfC - Should we change the focus & title of this article?

    This one clearly failed to obtain consensus. For the record, I !voted in favor of the changes. I'm half-tempted to close it myself as "no consensus" but perhaps an uninvolved editor may wish to summarize the discussion or include recommendations on how best to proceed forward. (No admin action is required I don't think, so any experienced editor is welcome to close it.) Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:A Boy Was Born#Should the lead sentence include the phrase "(correctly titled A Boy was Born)"?

    Discussion is calming down a bit. --George Ho (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 29#Template:Finalhist

    open for over a month, including the multiple relistings. Frietjes (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis

    Was archived after several dozen support and oppose entries along with many additional comments, includes a community sanction proposal that needs uninvolved administrator closure (and if consensus for found, enactment). Was open for six days, active for four then idle for two and archived. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

    This isn't the place to continue the dispute, but to request the closure of discussions. Armbrust 03:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The Rambling Man continues to make personal attacks. This kind of thing needs to stop. And it's not just toward Medeis and me but to others. That's another issue. But I must ask: Please, please, please implement this interaction ban ASAP. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Agree, to the above and the Proposal #2 Topic Ban of M and BBB from the Ref Desk. 193.169.86.13 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    The above editor is attempting to imitate TRM and get him into trouble. See discussion on WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I wasn't aware of this request for closure until just now. Four days ago I am not sure I would even have commented. In light of the consensus of about 4 to 1 in favor of either only an interaction ban between TRM and myself, or in favor of no sanction whatsoever, I will repeat my preference for an interaction ban.
    Unfortunately, after just a few days rest, TRM has again resumed following and addressing me critically on different pages.
    Especially troubling is TRM's reviving his pointed allusion to "tragic" events in a veiled response to me at WP:ITN after his comment regarding a "tragedy" of which I am the survivor were redacted. See my intended-to-be private explanation at Deborahjay's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Deborahjay#FYI . (Admins who want details and public documentation can email me privately.)
    This Ref Desk thread was edited after the fact to add in a condescending remark about my tragedy.
    Then look at TRM responding to me as "somebody" and quoting me verbatim at the Monica Spears murder nomination at ITN. once again adding in an allusion to a "tragedy" when he basically 'thinks of a better comeback'! An admin drags this from private talk page to ref desk to ITN, to serve what purpose in improving wikipedia?
    An immediate, indefinite interaction ban is called for, one I will be glad to have mutually imposed, one I have asked for repeatedly since the new year. This pattern of elevating provocation is long term, with TRM attacking for me for a period of weeks last year, calling me "meds" all accross the project, and beginning attacks again the fall at ITN. When TRM can't get my attention, he attacks User:BabbaQ or Baseball Bugs as proxies, attacks "incompetent admins" for not imposing arbitrary sanctions on all his imagined enemies across the board. As a qualification, I ask that no other sanctions be placed on TRM, and that neither of us be banned from participation in any particular thread such as ITN which we both have histories of editting, so long as we do not directly or indirectly refer to each other or allude to each other's edits. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    What would "closure of discussion" consist of? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    As George as clearly noted above "uninvolved administrator closure (and if consensus for found, enactment)". (Oh, and having read the ridiculous nonsense above, I do reserve the right to use the word "tragic" as I see fit... "Allusions"? Delusions. Medeis, if you don't want your life story published, don't publish it.) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

    The information in the above hatted section shows that provocative interaction by The Rambling Man is continuing, even after the third ANI was allowed to go dormant without closure. It is continuing even on this thread, with TRM "reserving the right" to "publish my life story". Perusal of the ANI shows an obvious 4-to-1 consensus in favor of an interaction ban. Medeis and Baseball Bugs have requested this repeatedly, and TRM does not oppose it. Please impose the requested interaction ban. Failure to close serves no purpose other than continued disruption. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

    Just for clarity, I reserved the right to use the word "tragic" without recourse. I also advised you to avoid publishing personal information as it can be used against you by nefarious types, i.e. they can determine your identity, your address etc. These two constructs are entirely separate and your conflation of them is exotic and without any basis in fact whatsoever. Secondly, you misrepresent me, I certainly do _not_ want the interaction ban because it would prevent me from compiling the RFC about your misbehaviour and ongoing selective censorship at the ref desks. Thirdly, it's very "creative" to assert a 4-1 consensus, but that's pure falsehood. And by now I'm sure you appreciate it's not a vote counting exercise, despite your assertions here and at ITN. The quality of the argument counts too (e.g. "Support 1" alone is meritless). You may also wish to note the many people who supported proposal 2 which was to prevent the ongoing RD nonsense. I strongly support this, that we are all prevented from editing ref desks for the next six months as it may allow other, genuinely helpful editors to contribute without the fear of being rebuked, joked at, hatted etc. Very few oppositions for that, and some in strong support, particularly from those who have been driven away from the RD by both Medeis' and BB's recent behaviour. Time to look closer to home. As Radiohead said: "you do it to yourself, that's why it really hurts." The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community_sanctions:_The_Rambling_Man.2C_Baseball_Bugs.2C_and_Medeis - closed. I thought it pointless to unarchive to close, then re-archive after the close. But if some uninvolved editor thinks it should be displayed (or at least linked to) at WP:AN/I or WP:AN, please feel free at your discretion. - jc37 18:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

    NFCC discussion needing closure

    1. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Shooting of Trayvon Martin
    2. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Hrw froth.PNG
    3. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Unilever brands
    4. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Yekîneyên Parastina Gel.jpg
    5. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Thomas Heming shop interior and trade card c.1765.jpg
    6. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Duke Ellington at Fargo, 1940 Live
    7. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Arthur Dove
    8. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Tsar Dusan's coin.gif
    9. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Raquel Welch in deer-skin bikini.jpg
    10. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Bibliotheca Teubneriana
    11. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Daktronics logo.PNG
    12. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Goetz Family Coat of Arms.jpg
    13. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#The Velvet Underground & Nico
    14. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#BBC Television Shakespeare
    15. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Star Wars music
    is the current list. Werieth (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)

    Open for longer than seven days without a relist. (I am uninvolved.) Erpert 20:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

    We have quite a backlog at the moment, and there's about 90 other AFDs that need to be handled before this one. Please be patient. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
     Closed — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    WP:RSN#Removal of material with Ludwig von Mises Institute connections

    Because so many WP:BLP talk page discussions are about this issue over and over again, and variations on it have been brought to WP:Reliable Sources Noticebaord repeatedly - and because the articles all are under Austrian economics/General sanctions - it would be helpful if an experienced admin could close this WP:RSN thread. There seems to be a fairly clear, but less than perfect consensus. It was opened January 9th and the last comments were January 12, so if it's not ready for a close now, by the time someone has time to look at it, it should be ripe. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/RfC to close down Incubator

    The consensus appears to be very clear here. Could an uninvolved editor please close this RFC now that a reasonable amount of time has passed ( days as of this post) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 3#C:WRONG

    This RfD has now been open for 12 days and is failing to gain any new opinions despite disagreement continuing; I think everything useful has been said that could be said. Closing it would aid the current parallel discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts, as indicators of current practice (typically taking the form of RfD decisions) are sorely needed. Thank you. — Scott • talk 13:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

    Closed just now by BHG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 25#Tate

    First listed on 8 November. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 18#Category:People_who_found_out_later_in_life_that_they_are_of_Jewish_descent

    Discussion stalled since 11 January. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 19#Category:FGM_victims

    Discussion stalled since 10 December 2013‎. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:ANI#Proposal

    No new input for several days, a consensus has been reached and the discussion is stagnating. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Southeast Africa#RFC-Does Southeast Africa deserve full article coverage or just a list of the countries in the region due to its inconsequential nature?

    User:Andajara120000 initiated an RfC before being blocked as a sock of User:Johnjohnjames. There has been no discussion and the question itself looks suspicious. Can I non-admin close this RfC with no further issue? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

     Done Armbrust 10:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Daniel Craig#Request for comments

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Daniel Craig#Request for comments (initiated 22 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Which image should be added in the infobox? The present image which was captured in 2009 or This image taken in 2012 at Skyfall premier ?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

     Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Riga supermarket roof collapse#List of deceased: Paragraph of bulleted points in columns?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Riga supermarket roof collapse#List of deceased: Paragraph of bulleted points in columns? (initiated 25 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

     Done Armbrust 11:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Merkin#RfC: "Pubic wig" or "a wig for the pudendum"?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Merkin#RfC: "Pubic wig" or "a wig for the pudendum"? (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

     Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Liberty University#RfC: Is a John Lofton's American View material suitable for inclusion?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Liberty University#RfC: Is a John Lofton's American View material suitable for inclusion? (initiated 4 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

     Done Armbrust 11:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:The Simpsons#The Adult Genre

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Simpsons#The Adult Genre (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Daily Mail#RfC on adding substantial number of lawsuits

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Daily Mail#RfC on adding substantial number of lawsuits (initiated 26 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Ought the list of lawsuits be greatly expanded, as listed above, for the reasons given in the posts suggesting them." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012#RFC: Should a list of endorsements include people who quietly donated?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012#RFC: Should a list of endorsements include people who quietly donated? (initiated 26 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Jimmy McMillan#Picture choice

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jimmy McMillan#Picture choice (initiated 31 October 2013; RfC tag added 3 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

     Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:BP#RfC: Has this article become a forum for anti-BP sentiment?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:BP#RfC: Has this article become a forum for anti-BP sentiment? (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Thomas Jefferson#RfC: How should the statement of Jefferson's treatment of slaves be worded?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Thomas Jefferson#RfC: How should the statement of Jefferson's treatment of slaves be worded? (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Claude Monet#RfC: Are the galleries in the Monet article excessive?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Claude Monet#RfC: Are the galleries in the Monet article excessive? (initiated 15 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Gun control#Authoritarianism and gun control RFC

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun control#Authoritarianism and gun control RFC (initiated 16 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anatomy#RfC: Use of "Human" in Anatomy article titles.

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anatomy#RfC: Use of "Human" in Anatomy article titles. (initiated 14 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts (initiated 19 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 111#As WP uses HTTPS, should (some) external links, too?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 111#As WP uses HTTPS, should (some) external links, too? (initiated 16 November 2013)?

    If there is a consensus for any changes, would the closer file a bugzilla to notify the developers of the consensus, or if that's not the correct venue, post the change where it's appropriate? Or maybe modify any guideline/information page per the discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Quranism#RfC: Should Chiragh Ali be removed from the list of advocates of Quranism?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Quranism#RfC: Should Chiragh Ali be removed from the list of advocates of Quranism? (initiated 11 December 2013)? See also the discussion at Talk:Quranism#RfC seems to have completed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

     Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Knockout (violent game)#Change title

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Knockout (violent game)#Change title (initiated 8 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Armenian American#RfC:Shall an image of Kim Kardashian be included in the collage in the article's infobox?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Armenian American#RfC:Shall an image of Kim Kardashian be included in the collage in the article's infobox? (initiated 10 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Mayer Brown#RfC: Is the "Controversy in Russia" section appropriate?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mayer Brown#RfC: Is the "Controversy in Russia" section appropriate? (initiated 12 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)