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 18:55, 5 February 2014 editArmbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers325,586 editsm →NFCR discussion needing closure (28 January 2014): fix← Previous edit Revision as of 18:56, 5 February 2014 edit undoWerieth (talk | contribs)54,678 edits Revert to revision 594082259 dated 2014-02-05 18:43:34 by Werieth using popupsNext edit →
Line 43: Line 43:
::::I got a message on my talk page asking me to summarize the outcome of this RFC. As Armbrust noted above, I merely added archive templates several weeks after the RfC became inactive and closed by a bot. As I was an active participant in the discussion, I don't think it's appropriate for me to summarize the outcome, but consensus is quite clear for anyone who cares to read the discussion and the votes. -] (]) 06:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ::::I got a message on my talk page asking me to summarize the outcome of this RFC. As Armbrust noted above, I merely added archive templates several weeks after the RfC became inactive and closed by a bot. As I was an active participant in the discussion, I don't think it's appropriate for me to summarize the outcome, but consensus is quite clear for anyone who cares to read the discussion and the votes. -] (]) 06:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::Given that the conclusion is pretty evident, close seems to be sufficient but by all means if there is a non-involved closing word then that would be okay. ] (]) 18:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC) :::::Given that the conclusion is pretty evident, close seems to be sufficient but by all means if there is a non-involved closing word then that would be okay. ] (]) 18:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

⚫ ===NFCR discussion needing closure===

;Unclosed
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ {{cot}}
----
;Closed
# ]
#: {{done}} -- ]<font color="#335599">'''Лее'''</font>]. 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
# ]
#: {{done}} -- ]<font color="#335599">'''Лее'''</font>]. 15:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
# ]
#: {{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
# ]
#: {{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 23:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
# ]
#: {{done}} -- ]<font color="#335599">'''Лее'''</font>]. 15:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
# ]
#: {{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 15:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
# ]
#: {{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 15:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
# ]
⚫ #: {{done}} ] (]) 14:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
# ]
#: {{done}} ] (]) 14:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
⚫ {{cob}}
:is the current list. ] (]) 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===
Line 182: Line 241:
===]=== ===]===
Admin needed to close this RFC. ] (]) 14:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Admin needed to close this RFC. ] (]) 14:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

⚫ ===NFCR discussion needing closure===
⚫ {{cot}}
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ # ]
⚫ {{cob}}
⚫ :is the current list. ] (]) 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:56, 5 February 2014

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles 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 24 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 17 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: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)

     Done Closed informally by Zanhe after a bot removed the RfC tag as expired. I guess that means no consensus. Either way, with no more edits in over two weeks, the issue seems to have settled. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    Comment Zanhe only placed the discussion between a {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} template, but a summary of the discussion is still needed. Armbrust 17:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with Armbrust (talk · contribs)'s assessment of the situation. A closure is beneficial because the issue keeps resurfacing as demonstrated by the multiple discussions (see Armbrust's comment here). Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    I got a message on my talk page asking me to summarize the outcome of this RFC. As Armbrust noted above, I merely added archive templates several weeks after the RfC became inactive and closed by a bot. As I was an active participant in the discussion, I don't think it's appropriate for me to summarize the outcome, but consensus is quite clear for anyone who cares to read the discussion and the votes. -Zanhe (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    Given that the conclusion is pretty evident, close seems to be sufficient but by all means if there is a non-involved closing word then that would be okay. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

    NFCR discussion needing closure

    Unclosed
    1. WP:NFCR#File:Hrw froth.PNG
    2. WP:NFCR#Unilever brands
    3. WP:NFCR#File:Yekîneyên Parastina Gel.jpg
    4. WP:NFCR#File:Raquel Welch in deer-skin bikini.jpg
    5. WP:NFCR#Bibliotheca Teubneriana
    6. WP:NFCR#File:Goetz Family Coat of Arms.jpg
    7. WP:NFCR#The Velvet Underground & Nico
    8. WP:NFCR#Star Wars music
    9. WP:NFCR#File:Ayala Malls Logo.jpg
    10. WP:NFCR#File:Ursula Andress in Dr. No.jpg
    11. WP:NFCR#File:Autumn Rhythm.jpg
    12. WP:NFCR#File:Logo of Ever Gotesco Malls.jpg
    13. WP:NFCR#File:Emblem of the National Coalition of Afghanistan.svg
    14. WP:NFCR#Clara Bow
    15. WP:NFCR#Taskbar
    16. WP:NFCR#An Unearthly Child
    17. WP:NFCR#Multiple files in Regeneration (Doctor Who)
    18. WP:NFCR#Black Widow (Claire Voyant)
    19. WP:NFCR#File:'Still Life -20', mixed media work by --Tom Wesselmann--, 1962, --Albright-Knox Gallery--.jpg
    20. WP:NFCR#Shooting of Trayvon Martin
    21. WP:NFCR#File:Lecter, Hannibal.png
    22. WP:NFCR#Bucky
    23. WP:NFCR#Conseil du Scoutisme polynésien
    24. WP:NFCR#File:Debra Morgan.jpg
    25. WP:NFCR#File:MagrittePipe.jpg
    26. WP:NFCR#File:Doctor Who theme excerpt.ogg
    27. WP:NFCR#Ian Scott (artist)
    28. WP:NFCR#File:Peekaboo-marsheaux.jpg
    29. WP:NFCR#File:Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.jpg
    30. WP:NFCR#File:Thomas Heming shop interior and trade card c.1765.jpg
    31. WP:NFCR#File:American Broadcasting Company 2013 Logo.png
    32. WP:NFCR#Duke Ellington at Fargo, 1940 Live
    Extended content
    Closed
    1. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Arthur Dove
       Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
    2. WP:NFCR#File:Daktronics logo.PNG
       Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
    3. WP:NFCR#BBC Television Shakespeare
       Done Armbrust 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
    4. WP:NFCR#File:KPTLlogo2013.png
       Done Armbrust 23:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
    5. WP:NFCR#File:MAG osmani.jpg
       Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
    6. WP:NFCR#File:Arena Football Logo 1987-2002.png
       Done Armbrust 15:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
    7. WP:NFCR#File:Tsar Dusan's coin.gif
       Done Armbrust 15:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
    8. WP:NFCR#File:Alex Katz's 1970 painting of his son 'Vincent with Open Mouth'.jpg
       Done De728631 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    9. WP:NFCR#File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg
       Done De728631 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    is the current list. Werieth (talk) 17:40, 5 February 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)

    'Comment A bot archived it to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Removal of material with Ludwig von Mises Institute connections. Armbrust 15:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    I thought bot closure meant that what I see as a clear consensus could be put in the article, but the editor reverted my changes per the WP:RSN, so I guess we'll need an official close on this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    The bot didn't "close" the discussion, it just archived it due to lack of activity. In either case though, I wouldn't expect that to have an effect on someone involved being able to close the discussion. However if someone objected to your close on the grounds that you did not correctly interpret the consensus, then yes you would need to come here I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarification. And he asked me to come here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    @Carolmooredc:Please be clear. You had already come here.
    I merely stated that the bot archiving was irrelevant and that the bot's action did not put you in a position to declare that your view had prevailed in the discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
    At this diff Jan. 21 User:SPECIFICO wrote: If you still wish to pursue this, please request on AN that the archiving be undone, and await Admin close. There's no point to any involved editor trying to infer "consensus" -- thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 32#RfC: How should the statement of Jefferson's treatment of slaves be worded?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 32#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)

     Not done:A close would not help now. The text that was under discussion has changed significantly since the RfC was started. Some of the issues under discussion appear to be unresolved but if people are concerned about that it would be easier to start a new discussion that takes the current text as a starting point. To cap it all, the RfC is in a talk-page archive. Yaris678 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 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)

    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: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)

    Talk:Outrage (2009 film)#WP:BLP

    RFC discussion must be closed. --George Ho (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Futanari#Request for comment

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Futanari#Request for comment (initiated 19 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this image be present it the lede of this article, or even in the article at all?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Sasanian Empire#Recommendations to Map workshop team

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sasanian Empire#Recommendations to Map workshop team (initiated 21 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Numbers (TV series)#RfC: What should we call this article?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Numbers (TV series)#RfC: What should we call this article? (initiated 14 January 2013)? Misplaced Pages:Requested moves generally runs for seven days, though this discussion is listed as an RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

    Hello. I'm sorry that it took so long to talk to you about this; I just learned about this ANI.
    I'm the one who called for the RfC. I did so because one editor has changed the title of the show unilaterally without discussing it with the editors who work on the page first, and, since the change, that editor has been arguing that s/he did the right thing in regards to MOS:TM. In addition, someone did attempt to revert the article's title to the correct title twice, but the offending editor re-reverted the change both times.
    The title of the article had been relatively stable from the time the article was created until the change; the only time that the article's title did change was when editors decided that the title should be in sentence case and not all caps. As you can see here, most of the editors made the argument that the name should not have been changed because the use of Numb3rs was much more prevalent in reliable sources than the less common Numbers. I was pretty sure that most of the page's editors would have liked a third pair of eyes on the situation, so I filed the RfC. (The editor who we have been arguing with did suggest that we use a WP:RM to change the article's title back, but I could see that the relatively recent move from Numb3rs to Numbers (TV series) was already controversial in itself.)
    Honestly, I did not expect it to turn the RfC into another debate between that editor and me. (A full disclosure here, that editor and I have also been arguing the issue over at MOS:TM.)
    If I have done anything wrong in the eyes of the administrators, I'm sorry. If not, what is the next step? SciGal (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
    Hi SciGal (talk · contribs). You have done nothing wrong. You listed a move discussion as an RfC rather than at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Most move discussions are listed at WP:RM, but it is acceptable to list them as RfCs.

    There were related discussions about this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive764#Request for move protection at "Men's rights", and other action (August 2012) and Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles/Archive 39#RfC: RM is standard practice for reaching broad consensus for controversial page moves (October 2012), and there was no consensus that RfC couldn't also be used to move pages.

    I think it is better to list move requests under WP:RM, where the RM tag is removed only when the discussion is closed, whereas many discussions listed under RfC are unclosed after the RfC tag is removed by the bot.

    To answer your question, the next step is to wait for an admin to close the requested moves discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Template talk:Infobox album#Proposed addition of a "format" parameter

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox album#Proposed addition of a "format" parameter (initiated 21 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer (initiated 27 December 2013)? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion which says: "Should Misplaced Pages provide a more prominent disclaimer in general, or on health and medical content?"

    Please close the discussion after 26 January 2013. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England? (initiated 29 October 2013)? There were several participants and some previous discussions, linked there. The strength of consensus is relevant to a dispute, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Angus Deayton. Thanks, Narrow Feint (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

    Specifically, does this discussion constitute a clear consensus for the removal of "UK" from placenames (infoboxes etc) across the whole project, via mass edits? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 6#Category:Association football midfielder

    Seems uncontroversial after 18 days of running. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Duck_Dynasty#GQ section needs condensing

    I'm not sure I'm doing this right, but I'd like to try! lol... There was a proposal to condense the GQ section that has been idle for almost a week and a half... I'd like to have an uninvolved editor close the request... Thank you Nickmxp (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles#Leads in articles about Los Angeles neighborhoods

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles#Leads in articles about Los Angeles neighborhoods (initiated 1 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:2014 North American cold wave#RFC: What should the name of this article be?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 North American cold wave#RFC: What should the name of this article be? (initiated 9 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Nutation#RfC: Do we split this article? and if so how?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nutation#RfC: Do we split this article? and if so how? (initiated 21 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Baader-Meinhof phenomenon#RfC: Page name

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Baader-Meinhof phenomenon#RfC: Page name (initiated 28 December 2013)? The question posed was: "Should this page stay at its current name, move to Frequency illusion or be split into two separate topics at each name?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Smoke testing#RfC: Split the article and form a disambiguation page

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Smoke testing#RfC: Split the article and form a disambiguation page (initiated 31 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote:

    Should this article be converted into a disambiguation page and split into the following articles:

    Smoke testing -- A disambiguation page
    Smoke testing (mechanical) -- describing the use of smoke to test pipes
    Smoke testing (electronics) -- looking for smoke on first power up
    Smoke testing (software) -- testing of major functions before formal testing
    Smoke testing (theatre) -- testing smoke machines

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:High Speed 2#RfC on Units

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:High Speed 2#RfC on Units (initiated 20 January 2014)? According to this comment by an involved editor, "Opinions from outside editors were overwhelmingly in support of the metric unit precedence." The disputed change was first made on 26 November 2013. An edit war followed on 1 January 2014. There was a lengthy discussion beginning 1 January 2014 about units at Talk:High Speed 2#Units.

    I ask the closing editor to combine the two related "Units" section and assess the consensus in both discussions. Otherwise, I ask that the closer mention in the close that he or she considered the previous discussion.

    Given the robust discussion and the edit war, a formal close by an uninvolved editor would be helpful in recording the consensus. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:German acupuncture trials#RfC: What level of detail should be included in German acupuncture trials?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:German acupuncture trials#RfC: What level of detail should be included in German acupuncture trials? (initiated 31 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:In a World...#Request for Comment

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:In a World...#Request for Comment (initiated 29 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "To be clear the content at issue is this". The participants have stated whether they support or oppose inclusion of the content. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Template talk:Main#Multiple articles and one main article

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Main#Multiple articles and one main article (initiated 16 January 2013)? Please see the subsection Template talk:Main#RfC (initiated 15 January 2014)? The opening poster of the RfC wrote:

    Should the main tag also be used at the top of articles for purpose #2 (as discussed above -- to tag an article that is not the main article for its topic e.g. see history of Bitcoin ) or should it remain recommend only for its well-established purpose #1 to point to the main article only in summary sections elsewhere?

    The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Should the article be at Bothell or Bothell, Washington?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Should the article be at Bothell or Bothell, Washington? (initiated 29 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Moratorium on WP:USPLACE change discussions

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Moratorium on WP:USPLACE change discussions (initiated 9 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I suggest a one year moratorium on WP:USPLACE change discussions." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Graphs and charts#Creating a guideline for graphs and charts on articles

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Graphs and charts#Creating a guideline for graphs and charts on articles (initiated 22 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote:

    Let's start a discussion on this RFC to reach consensus and set up the way for future editors. The question is: how should graphs on Misplaced Pages be created?

    Please consider the closed RfCs Talk:Alejandro García Padilla#Should we include graphs about Puerto Rico's economic behavior under the Governor's tenure? and Talk:United States#Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey in your close. These two related discussions were mentioned in the RfC. The latter close was contested and upheld at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive258#Closure review request. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#RFC on QPQ for non self noms

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#RFC on QPQ for non self noms (initiated 5 January 2014)? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Muhmmadsabir and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Muhmmadsabir/UserProfileIntro

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Muhmmadsabir and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Muhmmadsabir/UserProfileIntro (both initiated 16 January 2014)? Because the discussions are related, I recommend that the same closer assess the consensus in both discussions to ensure consistency. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Firewall (physics)#RfC: What mention, if any, should be made of Friedwardt Winterberg's 2001 paper?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Firewall (physics)#RfC: What mention, if any, should be made of Friedwardt Winterberg's 2001 paper? Thanks, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 2

    Some of the discussions at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 2 are over one month old and should be relisted or dispositioned. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Airbus Group

    Would an uninvolved editor please look at a rather complicated multi-page move, which was discussed in three successive sections of the Talk:Airbus Group talk page:

    Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:David Ogden Stiers

    Can someone here close many a discussion? --George Ho (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, London

    Has gone over the 7 days. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Pamela Geller#Request for comment

    Admin needed to close this RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)